Liberia...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

How the fuck do you work that one out? Are you honestly saying that you believe that the U.S.A could take over the world if it wished?

I don't "believe" it. I know it's nothing less than the truth. I've seen the numbers: we account for a third of the world's GDP, and over 42% of all defense spending in the world - before taking into account the fact that every dollar we spend is ten to twenty times more effective than our closest competitor's, due to our overwhelming technological superiority and the capitalist incentives for R&D. The increase alone in our next defense budget is $50 billion. That's more than the next country on the list has ever spent in a single year. Tyler was almost right about the actual size of our defense budget - it's larger than the totaled defense budgets of the next nine countries, rather than the next ten. But that hardly matters, because as you go down the list the defense budgets drop precipitously. Tyler's right again about nuclear weapons; we wouldn't need them. Our conventional forces could do the job and we wouldn't even take very many casualties. Never in the history of the world has one nation had this kind of power at its disposal. This is precisely why I have no patience for the duplicitous announcements by France and the like of the need for a "multipolar world." It ain't happening. They will still rely on us to defend them and insist on the preservation of "historical transatlantic alliances", but they'll pretend that they're independent enough to oppose us whenever they wish. Kinda like now, only they'll step up the rhetoric and add a few more acronyms about united European defense treaties &c to the already ridiculous European lexicon.

 

Knock yourselves out, kids. Pretend it makes a difference if you like.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Yes, but in the Vietnam and Korean "wars", not to mention the Gulf War and even the latest Iraq war, there was no formal declaration of war. Thus, the President has usurped (in a way) the ability to "declare" war.

True. You're right, insofar as the Congressional resolutions supporting the cited actions were all ex post facto (except for our latest war in Iraq, which a joint resolution in Congress specifically authorised well before the start of operations - early October, as it happened).

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Thought so

 

Even then, though, we didn't declare war. It was more of a resolution to allow military force, where as we have been shying away from actual declarations.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

But why would we want to take over the world? Most of it is poor anyways...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Thought so

 

Even then, though, we didn't declare war. It was more of a resolution to allow military force, where as we have been shying away from actual declarations.

Right. That's hardly the President usurping Congress's powers, though; that's just Congress being wishy-washy about exercising them.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

But why would we want to take over the world? Most of it is poor anyways...

Taking it over would be a lot harder than just leaving it in smoking ruin.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Oh, I know, I just couldn't think of a better word at that point in time. Perhaps "inherited" is a better term for it.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

Godammit, the UK could whip the USA's ass any time!

 

Or not, as the case may be.

 

So why does the USA need to be stronger than the rest of the world? All it takes is for one nationalistic fuckhead to come into power, spin some shit about the US being greater than any nation in the world, start a few wars with countries that he doesn't like the look of and *BINGO* WWIII and nuclear holocaust time.

 

That scares the fuck outta me

[Guest Vern Gagne]

My .02, I don't think the U.S. should send troops. However, I would not be shocked if a small number of troops are sent. Major fighting in Iraq only ended 2 months ago. IMO...President Bush may feel obligated to participate in any peacekeeping.