Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Usa rules the world

  1. Jan 23, 2004 #1
    On the outside the goverment of the united states lets the countries of the would think they are in control. But in fact the united states could crumble any goverment, destroy any army, or cut of supplies to anyone whenever they want. Anyone who thinks different is lieing to themself.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 23, 2004 #2

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    And, with typical American flair, you misspell "Southern." And "world." And "lying." Oh, well. At least Americans don't control the world's supply of literacy, eh?

    - Warren
     
  4. Jan 23, 2004 #3
    He also thinks "of" and "off" have the same spelling. And doesn't know that he should capitalize "California" and "United States".

    Ignorance is Strength!
     
  5. Jan 23, 2004 #4

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Oh, and "themself" isn't a word. And I missed "goverment" too. Pity.

    - Warren
     
  6. Jan 23, 2004 #5

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Now here's the scary part ... Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao are very well aware of the US' power. However, from their rich cultural heritage, they tend to think in terms of centuries rather than the next election. They realise that in a world which implements much that the US avows (free trade, capitalism, entrepreneurship, science & technology, ...), it's only a matter of time before China's sheer demographics result in China being the #1 economic power (assuming that they institute free trade policies, allow capitalism to rise in China, give entrepreneurs a boost, foster S&T, ...). Once you're #1 economically, the rest is easy.

    There's plenty of evidence to suggest that wise Indians, Brazilians, and Russians are as aware of this as the Chinese leaders. Too, many a French and German leader may hope their grandchildren will live in an EU which has an economy far surpassing the US's.

    Perhaps you should worry that Singaporean school kids do better at English than those from the US (on average), and that Indians and Chinese win a great many of the international maths and science high school contests?
     
  7. Jan 23, 2004 #6

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    An excellent point Nereid. I have no doubt that the US won't be able to remain a superpower out of sheer willpower. You sure you ain't just lieing to yourselve though? :wink:

    - Warren
     
  8. Jan 23, 2004 #7

    GENIERE

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I’m at a loss as to why wealthy, powerful but democratic trading partners would be considered a bad thing for the US. Capitalism and free trade are the means for all the world’s citizens to escape deprivation and enjoy the fruits of their labors.
     
  9. Jan 23, 2004 #8
    Well, there is the problem of the Earth only having a finite amount of resources. There isn't enough resources to sustain the current standard of living in the US for everyone in the world, at least not for any significant amount of time.

    So by allowing the rest of the world to grow richer, the US (and other developed nations) are shortening the length of time they can sustain their current standard of living.
     
  10. Jan 23, 2004 #9
    Isn't this sort of 'schoolyard bully' attitude better suited for 5th grade?
     
  11. Jan 24, 2004 #10
    Hmmm, all the things i was gonna say have been said.

    ooh ooh, i got one

    'there's only one Andy around here'
     
  12. Jan 24, 2004 #11

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I'm just gonna jump in here and be "benefit of the doubt" guy. Andy 18 never said the US should bully other countries, only that it could. And when he says that "anyone who says different is lieing to themslf",he is factually correct, even if not gramatically. BTW; I thought we had established here in the Forums that nit-picking someone's spelling errors was bad form (or bad Forum, or something).

    This seems to me to be a point worth noting. When the Somalians crowed about how they defeated the U.S. military in Mogadishu, they were lying to themselves. The US was not incapable of leveling their city; we chose not to.

    Similarly, after the attacks of 911, the U.S. could have carpet bombed all the major population centers in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The fact that we could have lends significance to the fact that we didn't. If the Afghans or Pakistanis had similar military might, can anyone imagine them exercising similar restraint?

    If Saddam Hussein had acquired nuclear capability, does anyone think he would've gone to the trouble and risk and expense that the USA sacrificed in our attempt to disarm the military and unseat the dictator without killing the general population? Where other nations may lack the capability to commit genocide but continue to do the best they can with what they've got, we possess truly devastating military potential, and exercise great restraint in its use.

    I hope that is what Andy18 meant. Something worth pondering, anyway.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2004
  13. Jan 24, 2004 #12
    The temptation to respond as "Mrs Andy" is, well, not really for me...lucky you Andy!
     
  14. Jan 24, 2004 #13
    You could try changing one word, 'country' and make it countries, then the US is no longer in control, plus the simplicity that control requires that you have it, not the potential to take it... as for the rest...better I be silent.
     
  15. Jan 24, 2004 #14
    Please. I wouldn't grossly misinterpret someone to make them look stupid, but I wouldn't do it to make the look not stupid either.

    Even your generous interpretation of his post is hardly thought provoking. The US is not unique in its ability to wreck the world.

    Also, the way his post is stated it makes it sound as if the US could care out all these actions with impunity. But that's hardly so. If the US used it's power to destroy the more powerful nations of the world, those nations would in turn destroy the US.


    As for bad form...you've taken an obvious troll, and posted something serious in reply. Forcing me to make a serious reply. Very bad form.
     
  16. Jan 24, 2004 #15
    Ha! I suspect that this posting is a form of a "sucker punching" the profile tells of a 22 year old Lawyer who supposedly wrote y"all (me included) this question....
     
  17. Jan 24, 2004 #16

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    well, look at the romans, the babylonians, the mongols...all these 'great empires' (yes i know US isnt an empire!) always fall. Anyway despite what "y'all" say, most of you americans are descended from the brits, as are the australians and a lot of great nations. In fact, most nations need the UK whether they like it or not, so without us, you are nothing Andy 81
     
  18. Jan 24, 2004 #17

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    And without the Dutch the world would be flowerless!
    Ha! Think about that!!
     
  19. Jan 24, 2004 #18

    Tsu

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    And without America, the world would be...what? McDonald's-less? Wait. Let me think this one over...
     
  20. Jan 24, 2004 #19

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    lol, that one is priceless
     
  21. Jan 24, 2004 #20

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    hey, its a knock-on effect, if there were no mcdonalds there would be no grossly obese people...take it away someone else, lets keep this one going!
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Usa rules the world
Loading...