Thread: U.s Is Going To Fall

Originally Posted by Kaniaz

Wow Neruo. I have to say, one of these days you've got to clue me into your clearly enlightened beliefs.
[/b]

Really? Ah way cool man! Glad I could help you!

Originally Posted by Alucinor

we have the most bombs. no one would touch us; they know we can turn the whole side of the world they live on to dust. the only people we have to be afraid of are the extremist Muslims that actually want to do die fighting America. everyone else wants to stay alive, so they won't fuck with us.
[/b]

RETARD[u]

Now on the topic of 3FLryan saying that the US wont fall within his lifetime.
Pary tell me what are you prophesising, that the US will fall at some point in the future?
Doesnt exaclty make you a clairvoyant does it?
I must ask you, waht do you mean by fall?
They will no longer be a world power?
They will be wiped off the map?
The current system will be overthrown and the US will no longer be a democracy?

Quite Simply, your posts are too ambiguous.

Imran

Originally Posted by Ne

Now that's DEEP!
[/b]

i wish i said it.
You can thank Mr. Orwell for that one.

Than you Mr. Orwell. Now that's DEEP!

The thing that really annoys me is people who live outside of country do talk a lot of shit about it, but the whole world practically depends on its existance. It's just to bad that the people that run this country are not doing a good job of it.

Remove America from the picture and world economy... is fucked.

Hopefully the actual fall will be very gradual - that way the rest of world can adjust.

It would be the same effect if we removed China, or Britian, or any other large power. The US is not the only exception.

That is true, though the effect would not be as large as losing the only superpower.

If you remove China for example - that's 1 billion people gone - a ton of manual labor is lost.

... but you still have the superpower there to try and make things right (assuming there's people who are smart that run the country). The US would re-open tons of old factories, and temporarily would become an industrial self-sufficient nation. There are enough unemployed to run machines to cover enough of what was lost. Also, you would see other countries like India for example start upping their output.

Now reverse it - the is gone. 300 million people - pretty much the country that most industrial nations get a lot of their revenue from - gone. Does China take the place of the US and save the world economy?

I could only see China perhaps using ITS military next with no restraint holding them back..a little too conspiracy i know.
But all in all, they do suply most of the US with their cheap labour.
Ive got a question for you though...
Have you heard of the US dollar being next to useless without the presure they have on the OPEC trading their oil in US dollars? I realize that in the worlds perception they are a superpower but without that pressure and their dollar plummiting, where would that leave them? Would they still have enough production or output to sustain their nation (with most of their production being done overseas)?

It seems that there are many more contributing factors to a nation going economically bankrupt. Would the labourers then become the wealthy as the rest of the population cannot even establish a remedial job in factory production? A new poverity line would have to be created well below what we consider poverity today

thoughts?

Originally Posted by Conforming

Have you heard of the US dollar being next to useless without the presure they have on the OPEC trading their oil in US dollars?
[/b]

That's new to me and very interesting if it's true. Where did you hear that?
I think, if that's true, the very fact that the U.S. can force any single country (sometimes groups of countries) to tow their line is an indication of their power.
Great powers in the past have always pressured others in economic issues It's part of the Great Power's job description.
It's also in the nature of great powers to be at their most vulberable when they are most powerful.
Everyone wants a pop at the king pin, and he's got further to fall than anyone else.

Would they still have enough production or output to sustain their nation (with most of their production being done overseas)?
[/b]

I think the situation is getting very fragile. Not just for the U.S. but for all the West, as the most industrialized countries turn increasingly to outside sources for their basic requirements to sustain their populations and infrastructures.

Rome starting doing something similar, importing huge amounts grain to sustain it's population when it couldn't supply the demand itself. It was an early sign of a civilization that had outgrown its ability to maneage itself.

Why do we keep looking to Rome for an accurate simulation/estimate of what could happen in our future when so much has changed since then? For example, we don't use aqueducts, the internet, dynamite, nuclear weapons, tanks, globalisation, mass media, nuclear power, genetic engineering, fertilisers, chemicals, United Nations etc to name a few of the minor differences. I honestly think that would change the playing field a lot.

Originally Posted by Kaniaz

Why do we keep looking to Rome for an accurate simulation/estimate of what could happen in our future when so much has changed since then? For example, we don't use aqueducts, the internet, dynamite, nuclear weapons, tanks, globalisation, mass media, nuclear power, genetic engineering, fertilisers, chemicals, United Nations etc to name a few of the minor differences. I honestly think that would change the playing field a lot.
[/b]

I totally agree.

We're not going anywhere, folks. Sorry!

Originally Posted by Kaniaz

Why do we keep looking to Rome for an accurate simulation/estimate of what could happen in our future when so much has changed since then? For example, we don't use aqueducts, the internet, dynamite, nuclear weapons, tanks, globalisation, mass media, nuclear power, genetic engineering, fertilisers, chemicals, United Nations etc to name a few of the minor differences. I honestly think that would change the playing field a lot.
[/b]

Exactly. Looking to Rome for the American comparison is just a lazy cop-out for those wanting to make an argument. We need to use the facts available today, and some of magination, to provide a bit of insight on what may happen in the future. Comparing Rome is at most is a succinct way of pointing out the dangers prevalent in American society.

I do agree that the fall of this country is near. Soon we will have a stranglehold on resources, and that is bound to be disastrous. Also, next year for the first time the US is getting national IDs, which is an alarming example to me of how people are willing to give up freedom to allow the government to fight phantom "terrorism".

Not I.

until you are not allowed to buy or sell without an "ID" (RFID)
Until you cannot drive or have a job without one
Until you cannot own property without one
Then what?

This process will be accepted by the younger and younger generations in the coming decades
through a glamourizing process and making it the "new easy""new in" thing...look at cellphones, and the
youth craze that has instilled in a generation in a recently short amount of time. The same will be for RFID
chips...The NEW new national ID.

Heres a link for it showing how 'elite' and 'glamourous' it can be
( MOOOMMMMMMMMMY!!! I WANNNNNT ONNNEEEE!!!&#33:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3697940.stm

http://www.rfidbuzz.com/news/2004/chip_the_vip.html

This is yet another step toward a great world

Originally Posted by Kaniaz

Why do we keep looking to Rome for an accurate simulation/estimate of what could happen in our future when so much has changed since then? For example, we don't use aqueducts, the internet, dynamite, nuclear weapons, tanks, globalisation, mass media, nuclear power, genetic engineering, fertilisers, chemicals, United Nations etc to name a few of the minor differences. I honestly think that would change the playing field a lot.
[/b]

Major Point I was trying to explain that earlier, it seems so many people were trying to draw reference to a time period that is highly irrelevant to our current time and status quo of power that is today.

until you are not allowed to buy or sell without an "ID" (RFID)
Until you cannot drive or have a job without one
Until you cannot own property without one
Then what?[/b]

'Til Death of course.

In this world, that shouldn't be long. Anger shall eat me from the inside out.

Originally Posted by Kaniaz

Why do we keep looking to Rome for an accurate simulation/estimate of what could happen in our future when so much has changed since then? For example, we don't use aqueducts, the internet, dynamite, nuclear weapons, tanks, globalisation, mass media, nuclear power, genetic engineering, fertilisers, chemicals, United Nations etc to name a few of the minor differences. I honestly think that would change the playing field a lot.
[/b]

It isn't accurate. But both in rome and in America, the people in power started to fuck up. In rome that lead to it's end, it might happen in America. That really is the symbolic to me.

Not like it is 'just the roman empire'. The argument is derived from the base of 'power corrupts'. That is the bottom line to me. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Originally Posted by Neruo

It isn't accurate. But both in rome and in America, the people in power started to fuck up.
[/b]

...opretty much the only reason I used the Rome analogy. Think everyone would agree that Rome is way different, but it's the easiest (laziest?) comparison to draw.

Ego capio ad donum tuus caput..

Originally Posted by DeadDollKitty

Ego capio ad donum tuus caput..
[/b]

From the 6 years of latin I have had, I would say that you said something like: 'I ... at home your head'..

lol what?

Originally Posted by Never

to allow the government to fight phantom "terrorism"
[/b]

Huh? There is no terrorist threat? Where do you get that? What is your theory on what Al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah are about? Are they ice cream companies disguising themselves as terrorists who hold suicide bombings against us "infidels" as the highest honor achievable by humans? Does Al Qaeda not really have the goal of making Americans and Israelis extinct and forcing the rest of the world to become Muslim? Are you completely at ease with the possibility of one of those groups getting their hands on a WMD? Why do you think there is no terrorist threat? Please convince me so I can stop worrying. You have no idea how much I would love to agree with you.

I think once george bush leaves office we will change, but if our new presidents pulls all of those troops out of iraq then the world will see us as weak. if we cant finish what we start then other enemy's of the US may begin seeings chances to attack...

Hopefully hillary clinton does not become president, as soon as she haves a period she will launch nukes.

and i just thought of somthing, if she does become president the last 4 presidents would be : bush, clinton, bush , clinton.

Originally Posted by Volcon

Hopefully hillary clinton does not become president, as soon as she haves a period she will launch nukes.
[/b]

I can see her shooting them at Congress.

Originally Posted by Volcon

and i just thought of somthing, if she does become president the last 4 presidents would be : bush, clinton, bush , clinton.
[/b]

I never thought of that. If Michael Reagan is the next one after Hillary Clinton and the next one is a Carter, the order in history will be Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter. That could inspire a trend to elect people with names that make the presidential name order go all the way back. If the country goes to shit, we might as well have fun with it.

It's going to be hysterical if Bill Clinton becomes the first "First Man". He will get to live in the White House again, but this time he gets to screw off the whole time. Wait... That's what he did last time.

Originally Posted by Volcon

I think once george bush leaves office we will change, but if our new presidents pulls all of those troops out of iraq then the world will see us as weak. if we cant finish what we start then other enemy's of the US may begin seeings chances to attack...[/b]

Yeah. Thank GOD that America isn't already looking weak and retarded by attacking a country for no real reason, expect for the clear motive of revenge, and good thing they are still winning, for the last 4 years, in Iraq.

Hopefully hillary clinton does not become president, as soon as she haves a period she will launch nukes.[/b]

Just a good thing you aren't sexist, that would make you silly.