Until you got to the last part because, once again, another Slam America thread.
You know, if we Americans made threads slamming Australia or England or Ireland or anyone else--you all would cry and bitch.
I guess it's a good thing we're so willing to suck it up--since we're so used to Europeans bitching about us all the time. And that sucks because, generally, I like Europeans. I want to learn about you guys. Talk to you guys. But you make it so hard when you're so purposely hostile.
Now, I'm perfectly willing to admit that America fucks up from time to time--sometimes in huge ways--Vietnam, Somalia and President Bush's entire presidency--but we're not all bad and not all of us support the World Police shit.
(And, of course, if you were to compare the history of the United States to any industrialized power that--like, oh, say, England or Spain--we haven't done shit compared to them. The difference is that we're doing it now and they're taking a back seat, so no one ever remembers.)
We're just an easy scapegoat. It's easy for Europeans to hate us for everything.
Question: Should America just concentrate on there own problems and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.
if we do that, then the world starts bitching about how the US isn't helping the rest of the world enough. So ya we should and start focusing on our internal economy and problems, but instead we send waaaay to many troops and money to outside areas and our problems keep going undone.
Faie points, but in that case they should have been out of Iraq as soon as Saddam was taken into custody.
Considering the U.S and UK (as well as others?) are still there despite the local populace not wanting them, I'd say there are other motives.
If you pull out immediately after removing a country's leader, what you leave in the wake is a huge vacuum of power as vying factions compete to fill the emptiness. Likely civil wars, especially in an environment as volatile as Iraq's. Troops stayed to ensure that when they left, the country'd be at least a little more stabilized and that Iraqis actually had a large enough police force trained to deal with the problems that will surely ensue once foreign troops are all out of the country.
AkJay: One of Washington's warnings before leaving office was that America should stay out of other countries personal affairs, or "entangling alliances" so yes, we should.
Washington didn't live in the current political climate, so his advice is fairly outdated.
The immigrants join gangs or make gangs that only have members that are the same ethnicity as them.
Doesn't that make the majority of gangs American, then?
I'm not on a crusade against immigrants but statistically if you look at areas were there are large amounts of immigrants there is a big jump in crime.
Citation?
I don't want immigrants deported and my statement about fixing america by stopping immigration was just to show it wouldn't work. Its ONE reason there is increased violence not the sole reason.
Seems I misenterpreted you, then, I got the impression you were one of those right-wingers who cry foul of immigrants over everything they do. Sorry for that.
(And, of course, if you were to compare the history of the United States to any industrialized power that--like, oh, say, England or Spain--we haven't done shit compared to them. The difference is that we're doing it now and they're taking a back seat, so no one ever remembers.)
The difference being that times have changed immensely since the UK or Spain ruled the world. Life is held in higher regard, and violence isn't the primary method for change- At least in the West (I like to believe.). You're correct, the difference is that you are doing it now, in a very different world where having a few powerful nations that control everything is seen to be against the concept that democracy being the way forward. Many people see the U.S. touting democracy, freedom of speech, and the like (I'll skip the hypocrisy, because that's everywhere.), and then see them 'forcing' those views onto others. Maybe they don't want democracy? Maybe they don't want your way of living?
Sure, it might be better, but it's in your own ethos to allow them to choose. Was there a census in these countries before they were invaded under the guise of "Spreading democracy"?
You might as well replace democracy with whatever belief system you like- be it Christianity, Nihilism, or Agnosticism, people want the right to choose, even if their chosen option is wrong in your opinion.
The Maddest March Hare: Considering in the grand scheme of things that America hasn't really made a positive impact on the world since WW2, and even then they had to be provoked to help, I think that they should indeed focus on their own problems instead of telling everyone else how to go about their business.
Sure...good luck with China and North Korea! Let me know how that works out.
Saddam Hussein was a U.S.A. backed dictator, unfortunately for him, he decided to attack Kuwait, TWICE, and the U.S. decided that oil was more important than supporting the people they installed into foreign governments.[/quote]
Totally true! As was Shah Ayatolla in Iran (except the people cut his head off)...so tell me, why did we put that weak @$$ political party back in office again?
fudgebo: America needed to be world police after WW2, before then they had a strict policy of isolationism, but with two world wars and millions dead somebody had to step up and try bring things to order, and they did. But today people are sick of that kind of attitude, but answer this question, If America wasn't so involved in world politics would the world be better? Personally I don't think so, they're keeping china and North Korea on their toes, hey have Al Qaeda in hiding, they are a force to be reckoned with which is why despot nations are far more cautious than before. America may be seen as a big imperialistic power house bit they keep the world in check, that's a good thing. Of course I'm not denying all the bad shit either.
Plus, we had had "Bad Information" and "Unrealistic Expectations" in the inception of the UN, the single most useless political body on the face of the planet. Personally, I would love America to just withdraw and let the nations of the world sort themselves out. Only problem with that is, they can't.
Question: Should America just concentrate on there own problems and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.
Oh man God do I wish that was the case. And in fact, the US enjoyed years of Isolationism until some country over on that half of the world decided to come and blow some of our crap up on a small island SW of the USA mainlands. Since then.. the world has been screwed. So don't blame the US, blame Germany or perhaps the Japanese.... we would have left the world stage alone had we not been summoned.
Faie points, but in that case they should have been out of Iraq as soon as Saddam was taken into custody.
Considering the U.S and UK (as well as others?) are still there despite the local populace not wanting them, I'd say there are other motives.
If you pull out immediately after removing a country's leader, what you leave in the wake is a huge vacuum of power as vying factions compete to fill the emptiness. Likely civil wars, especially in an environment as volatile as Iraq's. Troops stayed to ensure that when they left, the country'd be at least a little more stabilized and that Iraqis actually had a large enough police force trained to deal with the problems that will surely ensue once foreign troops are all out of the country.
AkJay: One of Washington's warnings before leaving office was that America should stay out of other countries personal affairs, or "entangling alliances" so yes, we should.
Washington didn't live in the current political climate, so his advice is fairly outdated.
I would actually venture so far as saying, had the US attempted to actually 'occupy' and 'establish' a citizenry inside of Iraq. You would've seen American citizens stand up and topple the government. We have no desire to start a new colonization movement. None at all.
Question: Should America just concentrate on there own problems and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.
if we do that, then the world starts bitching about how the US isn't helping the rest of the world enough. So ya we should and start focusing on our internal economy and problems, but instead we send waaaay to many troops and money to outside areas and our problems keep going undone.
Until you got to the last part because, once again, another Slam America thread.
You know, if we Americans made threads slamming Australia or England or Ireland or anyone else--you all would cry and bitch.
I guess it's a good thing we're so willing to suck it up--since we're so used to Europeans bitching about us all the time. And that sucks because, generally, I like Europeans. I want to learn about you guys. Talk to you guys. But you make it so hard when you're so purposely hostile.
Now, I'm perfectly willing to admit that America fucks up from time to time--sometimes in huge ways--Vietnam, Somalia and President Bush's entire presidency--but we're not all bad and not all of us support the World Police shit.
(And, of course, if you were to compare the history of the United States to any industrialized power that--like, oh, say, England or Spain--we haven't done shit compared to them. The difference is that we're doing it now and they're taking a back seat, so no one ever remembers.)
We're just an easy scapegoat. It's easy for Europeans to hate us for everything.
Oh, well.
lol cry and bitch that's funny. Maybe some Americans have forgotten about england ,spain etc etc i haven't
Rev Erebus: An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine this week, which I quote: "If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
UsefulPlayer 1: Wait, helping other countries while your own country has problems? Is that not the definition of selfless?
The second anything goes wrong we get a stick up the ass. America really has to be a super hero doesn't it? Perfect from every angle or fight the fucking galactic empire again to remind the world how awesome we are.
I wanna see anybody here write about how America directly lead to whatever country they hail from becoming worse. Or where in the world, right now, that we are over extending our presences. Better yet, how their own nation is doing the world favors.
Because this really is just a pissing contest even though we're all people and you know what that means.
I apologize if I seem like an asshole. Maybe I'm just ignorant.
Edit: I apologize again if it looks like I'm flaming. Just felt like it is time to be on the offensive, tired of the defensive game and explaining our actions.
You're not an asshole, not arrogant, and not flaming this thread: this whole thread is an anti-American flame from a bunch of people who need something to blame because--IN OUR ABJECT STUPIDITY, THANK YOU MR. ROOSEVELT AND TRUMAN---we signed on to try to be responsible for the care, upkeep, health, stability, and well-being of all nations. Oddly, instead of everyone else coming to the table and "balling-up", they decide to whine and bitch until CNN picks it up. There's at least one thing I liked about Bush II: you didn't have him waving a wet finger in the air waiting for the wind to blow before making a decision- whether you agreed with him or not, you knew where he stood at least.
AND TO THE REST OF THE WORLD: If you'd rather we leave and not "meddle" (GOD, DID OBAMA ACTUALLY USE THAT WORD), then we need not apologize or justify looking out for our own interests. END OF CONVERSATION.
Rev Erebus: An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine this week, which I quote: "If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
Are we missing something here?
Your maths doesn't add up.
If you read it properly you will see the word's "i quote"
Rev Erebus: An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine this week, which I quote: "If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
Are we missing something here?
Your maths doesn't add up.
If you read it properly you will see the word's "i quote"
Doesn't mean it's right =/
EDIT: After some working out, i've discovered it's per month.
well people who are in Iraq have Body Armor and how do you pull out of your own capital thats like robbing your own house and then run away from the cops
Rev Erebus: An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine this week, which I quote: "If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
Are we missing something here?
Your maths doesn't add up.
If you read it properly you will see the word's "i quote"
Doesn't mean it's right =/
EDIT: After some working out, i've discovered it's per month.
Its meant as a joke i find it really funny how everyone is taking this seriously, i even received some questionable mail. It funny to see how a bunch of strangers on there laptops think they can run the world, CARRY ON FOLKS.
Rev Erebus: Its meant as a joke i find it really funny how everyone is taking this seriously
You looked around lately? So many anti-American threads that the concept of one of them being a joke is foreign to pretty much everyone. Besides, what part of "Question: Should America just concentrate on there own problems and leave the rest of us the fuck alone." sounds like a joke to you?
Rev Erebus: An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine this week, which I quote: "If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
The firearm death rate in Washington, DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. That means you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and killed in the US capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US, than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion: The US should pull out of Washington."
Question: Should America just concentrate on there own problems and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.
I'm sorry, those statistics are terribly off. His statistics are totally wrong. And his methodology might also be flawed. I honestly can't tell because I can't figure how he gets a rate of 60 troops deaths per 100,000, given 2112 deaths for 160,000 soldiers.
Anyway... fucked up statistics and bad methodology are pet peeves of mine.
The homicide rate in D.C. has hovered around 30-40 per 100,000 between 2003-2007 (calculated annually). The death rate in Iraq has hovered around 500-600 per 100,000 during that same time period (also calculated annually).
Even with the low troop death count so far in 2009 (101), the death rate per 100,000 troops in Iraq is significantly higher than the homicide rate in D.C.
However!
That letter was probably based off a similar statistic that can be generated comparing the deaths in the First Gulf War and the homicide rate in D.C. for 1991. In 1991, the homicide rate in D.C. was exactly 80.6 deaths per 100,000, while the death rate of U.S. soldiers per 100,000 was probably much lower than that (only ~150 US troops died during the whole operation). If that's the case, then yes, in 1991 the homicide rate in D.C. was higher than the mortality rate in Iraq during the First Gulf War.
That being said, there are alot of domestic issues America has to deal with. And this global policing shit really does make me *facepalm* once in a while. However, the real story is that D.C. managed to lower its crime rate so significantly that the number of homicides per 100,000 plummeted from 80.6 deaths per 100,000 in 1991 to 32 deaths per 100,000 in 2007.
Rev Erebus: Its meant as a joke i find it really funny how everyone is taking this seriously
You looked around lately? So many anti-American threads that the concept of one of them being a joke is foreign to pretty much everyone. Besides, what part of "Question: Should America just concentrate on there own problems and leave the rest of us the fuck alone." sounds like a joke to you?
I taught it was funny i taught it was oblivious seeing as the thread was a satire. Oh well
Rev Erebus: An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine this week, which I quote: "If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
The firearm death rate in Washington, DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. That means you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and killed in the US capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US, than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion: The US should pull out of Washington."
Question: Should America just concentrate on there own problems and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.
I'm sorry, those statistics are terribly off. His statistics are totally wrong. And his methodology might also be flawed. I honestly can't tell because I can't figure how he gets a rate of 60 troops deaths per 100,000, given 2112 deaths for 160,000 soldiers.
Anyway... fucked up statistics and bad methodology are pet peeves of mine.
The homicide rate in D.C. has hovered around 30-40 per 100,000 between 2003-2007 (calculated annually). The death rate in Iraq has hovered around 500-600 per 100,000 during that same time period (also calculated annually).
Even with the low troop death count so far in 2009 (101), the death rate per 100,000 troops in Iraq is significantly higher than the homicide rate in D.C.
However!
That letter was probably based off a similar statistic that can be generated comparing the deaths in the First Gulf War and the homicide rate in D.C. for 1991. In 1991, the homicide rate in D.C. was exactly 80.6 deaths per 100,000, while the death rate of U.S. soldiers per 100,000 was probably much lower than that (only ~150 US troops died during the whole operation). If that's the case, then yes, in 1991 the homicide rate in D.C. was higher than the mortality rate in Iraq during the First Gulf War.
That being said, there are alot of domestic issues America has to deal with. And this global policing shit really does make me *facepalm* once in a while. However, the real story is that D.C. managed to lower its crime rate so significantly that the number of homicides per 100,000 plummeted from 80.6 deaths per 100,000 in 1991 to 32 deaths per 100,000 in 2007.
Now, we know. And knowing is half the battle!
It was quoted from a satire magazine chillax peeps.
Fair points, but in that case they should have been out of Iraq as soon as Saddam was taken into custody. .
Leaving the country to disintergrate? How cruel.
Machines Are Us: Considering the U.S and UK (as well as others?) are still there despite the local populace not wanting them, I'd say there are other motives.
Sources?
Machines Are Us: The fact that there have been more deaths to military personnel since the war ended, there's something wrong with the whole thing.
Insurgencies are harder to fight for conventional forces due to the fact that insurgents obey none of the rules of warfare, and conventional forces must. Compare any of the Coalition armies to the insurgency, and you're looking at a classic battle between good, and evil. Yes, there's Guantanamo and the horrific Abu Grahib scenario, but at least we don't blow up civilians for no reason other than to prove we can, murder teachers for teaching girls and women and in general act like it's the Middle Ages all over again but with better hardware. And less mercy.
Faie points, but in that case they should have been out of Iraq as soon as Saddam was taken into custody.
Considering the U.S and UK (as well as others?) are still there despite the local populace not wanting them, I'd say there are other motives.
If you pull out immediately after removing a country's leader, what you leave in the wake is a huge vacuum of power as vying factions compete to fill the emptiness. Likely civil wars, especially in an environment as volatile as Iraq's. Troops stayed to ensure that when they left, the country'd be at least a little more stabilized and that Iraqis actually had a large enough police force trained to deal with the problems that will surely ensue once foreign troops are all out of the country.
AkJay: One of Washington's warnings before leaving office was that America should stay out of other countries personal affairs, or "entangling alliances" so yes, we should.
Washington didn't live in the current political climate, so his advice is fairly outdated.
Does not matter, and yes, his advice is still incredibly valid, he warned against sectionalism, such as what happened in the Civil War, would his adviced be outddated back then? and then he warned against political partisionship, and i remember a certain republican trying to keep democrats down, and just recently a certain democrat tyring to keep republicans down, is that outdatted? i think not!
Tehpwnsauce: But they need to invade places so that they can pretend they are still important.
Strong view, but I'd have to agree.
America is like the high school jock. He's showing off his big missiles and poncing around with the slutty countries, but in around five years he'll be at the mercy at the clever countries when his economy collapses.
Tehpwnsauce: But they need to invade places so that they can pretend they are still important.
Strong view, but I'd have to agree.
America is like the high school jock. He's showing off his big missiles and poncing around with the slutty countries, but in around five years he'll be at the mercy at the clever countries when his economy collapses.
Wrong. What you'll have is 51 individual states, all with differing opinions, all with bigger stockpiles of nuclear weapons, than any other country on the planet. Sounds like an awesome eventuality, doesn't it?
Look at the bigger picture here folks, America collapsing would make the current financial crisis look like a speed bump. China would ultimately suffer massive....massive...failure, given they own what, $700 Billion in US Treasury Bonds?
Look beyond your hatred of America, and understand with the dominance of the dollar, any failure of the US, would ultimately lead to disastrous consequences abroad.
America is like the high school jock. He's showing off his big missiles and poncing around with the slutty countries, but in around five years he'll be at the mercy at the clever countries when his economy collapses.
Wrong. What you'll have is 51 individual states, all with differing opinions, all with bigger stockpiles of nuclear weapons, than any other country on the planet. Sounds like an awesome eventuality, doesn't it?
Look at the bigger picture here folks, America collapsing would make the current financial crisis look like a speed bump. China would ultimately suffer massive....massive...failure, given they own what, $700 Billion in US Treasury Bonds?
Look beyond your hatred of America, and understand with the dominance of the dollar, any failure of the US, would ultimately lead to disastrous consequences abroad.
We have a winner. Looks like someone understands global economics, at least.
GodsOneMistake: And the incident such as vietnam, as I recall France put our asses into that mess. (Or so I very informed friend told me, but he usually isn't wrong about things like this)
Your friend is wrong there:
The french did fight in Indo-China, to keep a hold on their colonies. But that had nothing to do with the US, who fought in Vietnam as "a way to stop communism". The French did ask the US for help, as in advisors, logistics and training. As far as I know they never asked for actual troops. And you have to remember that between the French moving out and the US moving in where 10 years.
WE ALWAYS HAVE TO SAVE THE FRENCH, I WOULD NEVER TRUST THEM TO SAVE US EVER,
DAMN THE FRENCH!!!!!!!!!!!! (im British and I am glad that our countries can both share in our anti Frenchity to gain each others international trust)
Damn it... the "I'm british"-part wasn't displayed in the quote-message.
Now I can't use the "uhm, War of Independence, anyone?" I so desperatly wanted to :*(
Tehpwnsauce: But they need to invade places so that they can pretend they are still important.
Strong view, but I'd have to agree.
America is like the high school jock. He's showing off his big missiles and poncing around with the slutty countries, but in around five years he'll be at the mercy at the clever countries when his economy collapses.
Wrong. What you'll have is 51 individual states, all with differing opinions, all with bigger stockpiles of nuclear weapons, than any other country on the planet. Sounds like an awesome eventuality, doesn't it?
Look at the bigger picture here folks, America collapsing would make the current financial crisis look like a speed bump. China would ultimately suffer massive....massive...failure, given they own what, $700 Billion in US Treasury Bonds?
Look beyond your hatred of America, and understand with the dominance of the dollar, any failure of the US, would ultimately lead to disastrous consequences abroad.
Mabye this was a mistake in my original thread. I do not hate America, and in fact intend to move there.
I do actually agree however. But, I do still think that, given America's less-than-fair distribution of wealth a economy hiccup (Yes, I realise I've toned down a bit) would leave other countries with the responsibility to bail it out.
anglodoom: hate to burst your bubble but the majority of the american public was actually aganist going into iraq, not for it. your probably thinking of afganstan, in which case the population was actually split between whether or not to go in, but in neither case was the majority of the people for going to war.
secondly, while its easy to blame the american people for electing these kinds of leaders this same critism can be applied to many countries. my point here is this, politicans LIE, espically during elections. its a fact and its not isolated to the us. as an example, during his campagin bush said that there we wouldnt be going into any other nations and overthrowing/changing their governments, yet it happened anyway. clinton made promises that he blantly ignored, so did busch sr., carter, kennedy, nixon. and even obama, as have those in the house and senate, as have those in every other nation and empire that has ever existed. power corrupts, and people will do anything to get it.
I honestly don't think Bush invaded Iraq for the oil. He was just a war monger(like Winston Churchill, read up on that), and wanted to be a war president OR he wanted to finish the job his father started and kill Saddam.
Either way i was a mistake that has and is still going to cost America dearly on the world stage. Their relations with many nations could be better right now.
Isolationism is what you're trying to conduct here, and for the most part it would work, but the only problem is North Korea some other country would get cocky and send several thousand troops to America.
It'd be World War III.
But seriously, it'd probably be better if everyone just minded their own business, but thanks to greed, it will never happen.
Tehpwnsauce: But they need to invade places so that they can pretend they are still important.
Strong view, but I'd have to agree.
America is like the high school jock. He's showing off his big missiles and poncing around with the slutty countries, but in around five years he'll be at the mercy at the clever countries when his economy collapses.
Wrong. What you'll have is 51 individual states, all with differing opinions, all with bigger stockpiles of nuclear weapons, than any other country on the planet. Sounds like an awesome eventuality, doesn't it?
Look at the bigger picture here folks, America collapsing would make the current financial crisis look like a speed bump. China would ultimately suffer massive....massive...failure, given they own what, $700 Billion in US Treasury Bonds?
Look beyond your hatred of America, and understand with the dominance of the dollar, any failure of the US, would ultimately lead to disastrous consequences abroad.
Mabye this was a mistake in my original thread. I do not hate America, and in fact intend to move there.
I do actually agree however. But, I do still think that, given America's less-than-fair distribution of wealth a economy hiccup (Yes, I realise I've toned down a bit) would leave other countries with the responsibility to bail it out.
Whether you do or not, I'm merely presenting what would happen, should the US fall. In fact, the world cannot afford it. They can't. Whether people like it or not, America was allowed to become as powerful as it has. Whether that's a good thing, or a bad thing, is irrelevant. It is. The only solution, is the balancing of power. Yes, that means the US loses some of it's strangehold on the world...however, I do not view that as a bad thing. One society/view/belief, having more say than the rest, is instrinsically bad to the whole. Take it from an American, who gets to watch Republicans and Democrats vie for power, and shut the other side out every 4 to 8 years.
For the record though, I'm not flaming you at all. I was simply stating what would happen.
Tehpwnsauce: But they need to invade places so that they can pretend they are still important.
Strong view, but I'd have to agree.
America is like the high school jock. He's showing off his big missiles and poncing around with the slutty countries, but in around five years he'll be at the mercy at the clever countries when his economy collapses.
Wrong. What you'll have is 51 individual states, all with differing opinions, all with bigger stockpiles of nuclear weapons, than any other country on the planet. Sounds like an awesome eventuality, doesn't it?
Look at the bigger picture here folks, America collapsing would make the current financial crisis look like a speed bump. China would ultimately suffer massive....massive...failure, given they own what, $700 Billion in US Treasury Bonds?
Look beyond your hatred of America, and understand with the dominance of the dollar, any failure of the US, would ultimately lead to disastrous consequences abroad.
Mabye this was a mistake in my original thread. I do not hate America, and in fact intend to move there.
I do actually agree however. But, I do still think that, given America's less-than-fair distribution of wealth a economy hiccup (Yes, I realise I've toned down a bit) would leave other countries with the responsibility to bail it out.
Whether you do or not, I'm merely presenting what would happen, should the US fall. In fact, the world cannot afford it. They can't. Whether people like it or not, America was allowed to become as powerful as it has. Whether that's a good thing, or a bad thing, is irrelevant. It is. The only solution, is the balancing of power. Yes, that means the US loses some of it's strangehold on the world...however, I do not view that as a bad thing. One society/view/belief, having more say than the rest, is instrinsically bad to the whole. Take it from an American, who gets to watch Republicans and Democrats vie for power, and shut the other side out every 4 to 8 years.
For the record though, I'm not flaming you at all. I was simply stating what would happen.
Found this hilarious.
Until you got to the last part because, once again, another Slam America thread.
You know, if we Americans made threads slamming Australia or England or Ireland or anyone else--you all would cry and bitch.
I guess it's a good thing we're so willing to suck it up--since we're so used to Europeans bitching about us all the time. And that sucks because, generally, I like Europeans. I want to learn about you guys. Talk to you guys. But you make it so hard when you're so purposely hostile.
Now, I'm perfectly willing to admit that America fucks up from time to time--sometimes in huge ways--Vietnam, Somalia and President Bush's entire presidency--but we're not all bad and not all of us support the World Police shit.
(And, of course, if you were to compare the history of the United States to any industrialized power that--like, oh, say, England or Spain--we haven't done shit compared to them. The difference is that we're doing it now and they're taking a back seat, so no one ever remembers.)
We're just an easy scapegoat. It's easy for Europeans to hate us for everything.
Oh, well.