RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation?

RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

WyrdRich -> RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation? (9/26/2006 8:13:34 PM)
The Japanese Constitution specifies 1% Sinergy, not 10%.

Sinergy -> RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation? (9/26/2006 8:35:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich The Japanese Constitution specifies 1% Sinergy, not 10%. That is possible. I studied Japan since World War 2 in 1985. In men, the mind is the second thing to go as they get older. Just me, could be wrong, etc. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation? (9/26/2006 8:46:29 PM)
Hello A/all, Most powerful nation? Jamaica, hands down. If they didnt want the job I would nominate Tahiti. Just me, etc. Sinergy

Archer -> RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation? (9/26/2006 9:23:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LTRsubNW quote: ORIGINAL: Archer A basic question based on the fact that so many people seem to begrudge the US it's power possition, and are activly seeking to change it. If you make the US less powerful, then by default someone else becomes the new "Most Powerful Nation". Who would you propose that replacement be? It's a ridiculous question (rather, the assumed question...no offense meant)because most people are self serving. Yes it is a ridiculous question as it stands alone. It was ment specificly to get at the thoughts people have beyond the idea of making the US less powerful. Not to solicit any specific answers, but to explore the idea of international power bases, motivations, progress if any, etc. Which is exactly the goal I had in mind when I posed it, although it has had a much better result as the backup thoughts have proven to be fairly cogent arguments, some of which I had not considered as fully as the posters.

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation? (9/26/2006 9:42:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Estring quote: ORIGINAL: diaperedslave Power coorupts, and it in goverment does so absolutly, it is evident in all rulerships based upon nationstates.. it has always been one corrupt ruler against the other.. sadly give a man a sword, a hammer, a bow a M16 or a Nuke and they become a madman. Give nation Hegonomy and it eats the others for lunch.. We need somethign other.. will we get it.. perhaps.. the world is getting hotter by the day so perhaps when the last vapors of water leave this brown globe peace will come.. peace at last.. No wonder you wear diapers. There will never be another country to supplant the US as the world leader because no other country will ever step up and become that leader. That is the way it has been for years, and that is the way it will continue to be. I'm sure there's never been a world leader that didn't say the same thing. I know Britain, Rome and the Soviets all believed they would have some eternal empire. If you look at the pace of the Chinese economy and the potential economic punching weight of a European superstate (god help us), it's human evolution to change world leaders as much as it is national ones. If history teaches one thing, it's that change is inevitable and that's probably a good thing.

RPutnamJr -> RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation? (9/26/2006 10:27:13 PM)
Just something to add about the Japanese Constitution... It allows for monopolies in business. This was inserted in order to protect Japanese businesses from competition and from being taken over immediately after WWII, by US companies. Japans economy is also closed to outside companies, although they have loosened constraints and are more open nowdays verses several years ago. So who cares what Japan does? By keeping their economy closed to the outside world and with the establishment of monopolies, the Japanese were able to run American businesses out of business since they were able to lower what they sold to the US below what it cost them to manufacture in Japan (known as dumping). By keeping their markets closed the companies were able to recapture their lost profits by charging Japanese consumers more than they could have if they had an open market like the US does. Once the competition has been eliminated by running it out of business the Japanese can then charge more for the same items since you have no choice basically but to buy from Japan. Only then did the Japanese open their markets slowly to American goods. Now is that a country you would like running the world? One that lookes out for its self interest all the time. The problem is that not everybody is playing by the rules set by the US government. For example: Child labor, environmental, minimum wage, government kick backs, bribes, monopolies, open trade laws, etc...you can go on and on. Things that are illegal here in the US other countries allow as just being normal. Look at Iraq...if an American soldier kills or even somewhat tortures an Iraqi then its all news and the world gets all huffy and puffy about it. But Iraqi's are killing themselves through torture, mutilation, death squads, etc...where is the world outcry about that? Why is it that we the USA must play by rules that others in the world do not? For the higher moral ground? Because we are the most powerful country in the world? All that is Bull Shit if you ask me. We were the original lets not play by the rules bad boy, just ask the British during the American Revolution. The problem is that since we are now the top dog we want to play by rules. Our society has become complacent in the world. There is no new challenges for us to overcome. We have conquored all, figuratively speaking and in the process we have become lazy. If you don't believe me then look at Iraq...2700 soldiers killed. If this was any other war that would have been one battle. After 9/11, we toppled the Taliban, conquored Iraq, etc. for what? Nothing if we do not finish the job properly. The problem is that we do not want to do the job properly, we want to follow rules: don't kill civilians, don't hurt children, etc. How many civilians, children, etc has the enemy killed? Where is the world outcry for them and against the enemy? I am against war in general, war is the last thing that should ever happen. But when we go to war I think we should truely go to war. The USA is the most powerful country in the world at this moment, we should act like it. Countries should fear going to war with us to be honest. We should use everything in our arsenal to make war as ugly and dirty as possible. Only when an enemy is soundly defeated do they truely desire peace. Consider WWII, France had a resistance because although it was defeated and occupied by Germany the peoples will to fight was not defeated. On the otherhand when Germany was defeated, its people were tired of fighting, they desired peace, they wanted peace, thus there was no resistance to our occupation. Iraq is like France, yes we defeated the government of Saddam, but not the people of Iraq. We will not have peace in Iraq until we stop playing by our rules and start playing by their rules. Then we need to become uglier than them, so that they learn not to mess with the USA the next time. Only then can we do what we did in Europe and Japan and rebuild a kinder world out of the ashes of the old and have true peace and prosperity in the world. As Theodore Roosevelt said, "Speak softly but carry a Big stick." We do not bully the world especially considering all the might that is at our disposal. Yes as with all countries, we have our disagreements and we don't see eye to eye all the time. But we try to be fair to all concerned and generally more than fair in some areas. We fight other peoples battles and ask nothing in return. Yes we do stick our noses into things that we don't belong in: Cuba, Vietnam, etc. and maybe even Iraq. But ask yourself? Do we do it to conquor them or to better them? Who do you want in charge of your country? Somebody like President Bush? Or Saddam? To make the world a better place it takes somebody to lead, to make tough decisions, to stand up and be counted, to do what is ultimately right by all, and not to just sit by and do nothing. Evil can only exist when good people stand by and do nothng to stop it. Who does the world routinely turn to? New Zealand? Switzerland? Japan? Europe? Russia? China? No, the USA. The USA is not perfect by any means, but at least we try, which is more than I can say about many other countries. If the world was a peaceful place and we all just got along then I'd be more than willing to even let the Swiss rule the world, but this is not fantasy island. The Swiss stand for nothing because they take no stance at all. And thats the problem with being neutral. Remember, evil can only exist when good people stand by and do nothing to stop it. Like I said, the USA is not perfect, but at least we try to do something and make the world a better place for everybody in the world. All we ask for in return is peace. One final suggestion, rename the Department of Defense back to the War Department. Then do what we say we are going to do, nobody listens to idle threats. Only then can we go back to speaking softly so that the world will hear us when we speak and most of all listen to what we have to say. Instead of ignoring us and our yelling. Remember the father of the 50's, when dad spoke everybody listened. We are the most powerful country in the world, lets start acting like it, in a fatherly sense, do what is right. Fight for freedom, liberty, and for those values that make us the melting pot of the world. Remember Theodore Roosevelt, by doing what is right for the next generation whether it is popular or not. Teddy Roosevelt also created the National Park Service to preserve the natural beauty of the USA for future generations, in case you did not know. Peace be to all, Robert Putnam Citizen of the USA, the greatest and most powerful coutry in our time, may we never fall like Rome...Pax Romana, Britain...Pax Britanna, the time is now...Pax Americana...may we be worthy of it. When its time to pass the torch and we are long forgotten, may it be to somebody worthy of carrying it and doing an even better job than us, otherwise the world has learned nothing.

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation? (9/27/2006 1:07:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RPutnamJr Just something to add about the Japanese Constitution... It allows for monopolies in business. This was inserted in order to protect Japanese businesses from competition and from being taken over immediately after WWII, by US companies. Japans economy is also closed to outside companies, although they have loosened constraints and are more open nowdays verses several years ago. So who cares what Japan does? By keeping their economy closed to the outside world and with the establishment of monopolies, the Japanese were able to run American businesses out of business since they were able to lower what they sold to the US below what it cost them to manufacture in Japan (known as dumping). By keeping their markets closed the companies were able to recapture their lost profits by charging Japanese consumers more than they could have if they had an open market like the US does. Once the competition has been eliminated by running it out of business the Japanese can then charge more for the same items since you have no choice basically but to buy from Japan. Only then did the Japanese open their markets slowly to American goods. Now is that a country you would like running the world? One that lookes out for its self interest all the time. The problem is that not everybody is playing by the rules set by the US government. For example: Child labor, environmental, minimum wage, government kick backs, bribes, monopolies, open trade laws, etc...you can go on and on. Things that are illegal here in the US other countries allow as just being normal. Look at Iraq...if an American soldier kills or even somewhat tortures an Iraqi then its all news and the world gets all huffy and puffy about it. But Iraqi's are killing themselves through torture, mutilation, death squads, etc...where is the world outcry about that? Why is it that we the USA must play by rules that others in the world do not? For the higher moral ground? Because we are the most powerful country in the world? All that is Bull Shit if you ask me. We were the original lets not play by the rules bad boy, just ask the British during the American Revolution. The problem is that since we are now the top dog we want to play by rules. Our society has become complacent in the world. There is no new challenges for us to overcome. We have conquored all, figuratively speaking and in the process we have become lazy. If you don't believe me then look at Iraq...2700 soldiers killed. If this was any other war that would have been one battle. After 9/11, we toppled the Taliban, conquored Iraq, etc. for what? Nothing if we do not finish the job properly. The problem is that we do not want to do the job properly, we want to follow rules: don't kill civilians, don't hurt children, etc. How many civilians, children, etc has the enemy killed? Where is the world outcry for them and against the enemy? I am against war in general, war is the last thing that should ever happen. But when we go to war I think we should truely go to war. The USA is the most powerful country in the world at this moment, we should act like it. Countries should fear going to war with us to be honest. We should use everything in our arsenal to make war as ugly and dirty as possible. Only when an enemy is soundly defeated do they truely desire peace. Consider WWII, France had a resistance because although it was defeated and occupied by Germany the peoples will to fight was not defeated. On the otherhand when Germany was defeated, its people were tired of fighting, they desired peace, they wanted peace, thus there was no resistance to our occupation. Iraq is like France, yes we defeated the government of Saddam, but not the people of Iraq. We will not have peace in Iraq until we stop playing by our rules and start playing by their rules. Then we need to become uglier than them, so that they learn not to mess with the USA the next time. Only then can we do what we did in Europe and Japan and rebuild a kinder world out of the ashes of the old and have true peace and prosperity in the world. As Theodore Roosevelt said, "Speak softly but carry a Big stick." We do not bully the world especially considering all the might that is at our disposal. Yes as with all countries, we have our disagreements and we don't see eye to eye all the time. But we try to be fair to all concerned and generally more than fair in some areas. We fight other peoples battles and ask nothing in return. Yes we do stick our noses into things that we don't belong in: Cuba, Vietnam, etc. and maybe even Iraq. But ask yourself? Do we do it to conquor them or to better them? Who do you want in charge of your country? Somebody like President Bush? Or Saddam? To make the world a better place it takes somebody to lead, to make tough decisions, to stand up and be counted, to do what is ultimately right by all, and not to just sit by and do nothing. Evil can only exist when good people stand by and do nothng to stop it. Who does the world routinely turn to? New Zealand? Switzerland? Japan? Europe? Russia? China? No, the USA. The USA is not perfect by any means, but at least we try, which is more than I can say about many other countries. If the world was a peaceful place and we all just got along then I'd be more than willing to even let the Swiss rule the world, but this is not fantasy island. The Swiss stand for nothing because they take no stance at all. And thats the problem with being neutral. Remember, evil can only exist when good people stand by and do nothing to stop it. Like I said, the USA is not perfect, but at least we try to do something and make the world a better place for everybody in the world. All we ask for in return is peace. One final suggestion, rename the Department of Defense back to the War Department. Then do what we say we are going to do, nobody listens to idle threats. Only then can we go back to speaking softly so that the world will hear us when we speak and most of all listen to what we have to say. Instead of ignoring us and our yelling. Remember the father of the 50's, when dad spoke everybody listened. We are the most powerful country in the world, lets start acting like it, in a fatherly sense, do what is right. Fight for freedom, liberty, and for those values that make us the melting pot of the world. Remember Theodore Roosevelt, by doing what is right for the next generation whether it is popular or not. Teddy Roosevelt also created the National Park Service to preserve the natural beauty of the USA for future generations, in case you did not know. Peace be to all, Robert Putnam Citizen of the USA, the greatest and most powerful coutry in our time, may we never fall like Rome...Pax Romana, Britain...Pax Britanna, the time is now...Pax Americana...may we be worthy of it. When its time to pass the torch and we are long forgotten, may it be to somebody worthy of carrying it and doing an even better job than us, otherwise the world has learned nothing. ok I'd better justify my statement rather than just calling it undiluted crap. * You say here that "Japan looks after it's own interests all the time". Can you name a country that doesn't? All countries look after their own interests, it's called survival. * You say you 'need to become uglier than Iraq'. I wasn't aware Iraq attacked America, were you? * Some of the things you point out, in fact all of the things you mention re:. child labour, enviromental laws, etc, apply to practically every decent democracy on Earth. Why you appear to be claiming them as American is a mystery, especially since your minimum wage, enviormental laws etc. are poorer than the other democracies you ignored. * You say "we should use everything in our arsenal to make war as ugly and dirty as possible". Which is quite ironic when you sign your entire diatribe with 'Peace be to all' * "Who does the world routinely turn to? The USA". Where? In what factual respect are you making this claim?. If you're talking about economic aid, applied against per $GDP, America comes a lowly 23rd behind the following nations:- Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, The UK, Ireland, Lesotho, Belgium, Switzerland, France, Canada, Austria, Germany, Finland, Japan, Portugal, Australia, Spain, New Zealand, South Korea and Italy. If you're talking about militarily, I'd like to know details of what you're referring to (please don't say WW2) * As for America building a kinder Europe, let's just pretend you didn't type it. * Are you seriously suggesting the reason America is in Iraq is through some benevolant reason to help out unfortunate Iraqi people? I mean, that's a romantic and noble notion but in the cold hard light of international politics, it's a little naive. Ask yourself something. If we're there to care about people and improve their lives, why aren't we invading every impoverished African nation to bring them this benevolant democratic lifestyle? Trust me on this, we don't go to war with nations to help them out. It has to be in our political interests to do so. * The 'Father of the World' thing is a little scary (I think Hitler called himself practically those exact words). Once you start inflicting your political beliefs on nations through military might, your nation become a dictator by action and definition. You don't bomb ideology into people, at least not unless you follow Al Qaeda's logic. No matter how wonderful you believe your ideology to be, I wouldn't want someone inflicting it on my nation and I suspect you wouldn't either.

meatcleaver -> RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation? (9/27/2006 1:08:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Estring No wonder you wear diapers. There will never be another country to supplant the US as the world leader because no other country will ever step up and become that leader. That is the way it has been for years, and that is the way it will continue to be. CITIES and Thrones and Powers Stand in Time's eye, Almost as long as flowers, Which daily die: When empires collapse they collapse quickly. There is nothing to suggest that the same won't happen to the USA. It doesn't mean it will collapse as a state or a civilisation but the world is in a constant state of flux and power changes and can't be maintained. Maintaining an overburdening military expenditure at the expense of the general health of the economy can prove decisive in an empire collapsing. You seem to think it is the military that makes the US strong, I would suggest it is its economy and the attraction of its culture that is its greatest strength. Bush and the neocons, according to US business people, is for the first time having a negative affect on how the rest of the world views the US and US products.

cacodylic -> RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation? (9/27/2006 1:12:43 AM)
No nation should be allowed to be more powerful than Iceland...

BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation? (9/27/2006 1:15:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cacodylic No nation should be allowed to be more powerful than Iceland... I'd have thought you would vote for Ghana for sure, or is it Jamaica? [8D] M

LadyEllen -> RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation? (9/27/2006 1:37:52 AM)
I think the answer here is crystal clear. The sovereign state of Mercia, with the rightful heir to the Mercian crown (ie, me), should rule the world. It is a secret long since held close in my family that we are the Mercian royal family. In 1067, the year after William the Bastard defeated Harold at Hastings, my family went underground to avoid capture and death, and has been successfully hiding as peasants and serfs since. The time has now come for the people of Mercia to rise up and overthrow a thousand years of Norman oppression, and reinstate me as their rightful ruler, and High Queen of All Britain. Clearly, since I'm the best qualified person for the job, I should then assume rulership of the world. I welcome any questions about this new world order. However, I have to go out and see my psychiatrist in half an hour, so I will be glad to answer later. Right now I have to get those damned pink elephants out of my house again. E

UtopianRanger -> RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation? (9/27/2006 1:50:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level China better grab while it's able.... the more I look, the less I fear them becoming a super-power for long. They're going to slam into the same wall we and western Europe are, a graying society; and they have plenty of problems right now, so, I'm not ready to pass the baton to them just yet. The creative part of their thinking is cynical, compartmentalized, and scared, all at the same time. The greatest majority of their advancements have come through technology transfers from the west; by way of payoffs, bribes or outright theft. A similar policy {like we used with the Kremlin} of isolation, containment and deterrence should have been applied to them instead of the one they are currently calling ''Engagement.'' ''Engagement'' is just a term / shield that cloaks the globalist's greedy exploitation of slave labor. - R

meatcleaver -> RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation? (9/27/2006 1:53:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RPutnamJr Just something to add about the Japanese Constitution... It allows for monopolies in business. This was inserted in order to protect Japanese businesses from competition and from being taken over immediately after WWII, by US companies. Japans economy is also closed to outside companies, although they have loosened constraints and are more open nowdays verses several years ago. So who cares what Japan does? By keeping their economy closed to the outside world and with the establishment of monopolies, the Japanese were able to run American businesses out of business since they were able to lower what they sold to the US below what it cost them to manufacture in Japan (known as dumping). By keeping their markets closed the companies were able to recapture their lost profits by charging Japanese consumers more than they could have if they had an open market like the US does. Once the competition has been eliminated by running it out of business the Japanese can then charge more for the same items since you have no choice basically but to buy from Japan. Only then did the Japanese open their markets slowly to American goods. America protects its own markets too where it can. However, Japan does manufacture superior products that world consumers want and that are reliable. Many US products don't travel outside the US because they have been specifically designed for US consumption rather than for export. US cars for example, it is almost impossible to sell them outside the US and when they do, they break down. US companies like Ford and GM who have a manufacturing base in Europe manufacturing cars for the European market, don't seem to know what their market wants, Japan somehow does. The problem is that not everybody is playing by the rules set by the US government. For example: Child labor, environmental, minimum wage, government kick backs, bribes, monopolies, open trade laws, etc...you can go on and on. Things that are illegal here in the US other countries allow as just being normal. America doesn't play by the rules America would set for everyone else. Look at Iraq...if an American soldier kills or even somewhat tortures an Iraqi then its all news and the world gets all huffy and puffy about it. But Iraqi's are killing themselves through torture, mutilation, death squads, etc...where is the world outcry about that? Why is it that we the USA must play by rules that others in the world do not? For the higher moral ground? Because we are the most powerful country in the world? All that is Bull Shit if you ask me. The US set its own high bench mark with Bush's constant reference to be fighting for civilisation. People judge the US by those standards. Actually it was a credit to the US military elite (I think it was in front of a congressional committee) when they spoke out against the administration's policy about the trial of detainees in Guantanimo. We were the original lets not play by the rules bad boy, just ask the British during the American Revolution. Yep. It helped that the war had little support at home (Britain), no strategy and no idea what it would do with the colonies should it have won. Sounds a little like Vietnam and more and more like Iraq. The problem is that since we are now the top dog we want to play by rules. Our society has become complacent in the world. There is no new challenges for us to overcome. We have conquored all, figuratively speaking and in the process we have become lazy. You do not want to play by the rules, you want to play by your rules.(Not untypical of a major power) If you don't believe me then look at Iraq...2700 soldiers killed. If this was any other war that would have been one battle. After 9/11, we toppled the Taliban, conquored Iraq, etc. for what? Nothing if we do not finish the job properly. You toppled Saddam and toppled the Taliban but there is peace in neither country. Brtish troops are doing far more fighting in Afghanistan than they are doing in Iraq. The problem is that we do not want to do the job properly, we want to follow rules: don't kill civilians, don't hurt children, etc. How many civilians, children, etc has the enemy killed? Where is the world outcry for them and against the enemy? You don't beat a guerilla army by ignoring collateral damage and the death of innocent civilians, you just create more supporters for your opposition. The US army should have been more constrained from the off, not let off the leash like a rotweiler. I am against war in general, war is the last thing that should ever happen. But when we go to war I think we should truely go to war. The USA is the most powerful country in the world at this moment, we should act like it. Countries should fear going to war with us to be honest. We should use everything in our arsenal to make war as ugly and dirty as possible. Only when an enemy is soundly defeated do they truely desire peace. Your enemy doesn't desire peace fullstop. It would love the US to use everything in its arsenal just to prove to the muslim world what a nation of psychopaths Americans are. The only way to win the current war is to win hearts and minds. You don't do that by killing inocent people in pursuit of the enemy. Consider WWII, France had a resistance because although it was defeated and occupied by Germany the peoples will to fight was not defeated. On the otherhand when Germany was defeated, its people were tired of fighting, they desired peace, they wanted peace, thus there was no resistance to our occupation. Many French collaborated with Germany, it's the cause of much national angst in France. Their resistance was limited but built up after the war into something it wasn't because the French couldn't face up to their real war time experience. The process of looking at that period truthfully is still going on in France and it still causes nation angst because it isn't a pretty truth. Iraq is like France, yes we defeated the government of Saddam, but not the people of Iraq. We will not have peace in Iraq until we stop playing by our rules and start playing by their rules. Then we need to become uglier than them, so that they learn not to mess with the USA the next time. Only then can we do what we did in Europe and Japan and rebuild a kinder world out of the ashes of the old and have true peace and prosperity in the world. You mean the marines ought to be more like the Nazi SS? We fight other peoples battles and ask nothing in return. Say that again please with a straight face. Yes we do stick our noses into things that we don't belong in: Cuba, Vietnam, etc. and maybe even Iraq. But ask yourself? Do we do it to conquor them or to better them? Who do you want in charge of your country? Somebody like President Bush? Or Saddam? It's irrelevent since Bush is in charge of Iraq, whether they want him or not. To make the world a better place it takes somebody to lead, to make tough decisions, to stand up and be counted, to do what is ultimately right by all, and not to just sit by and do nothing. Evil can only exist when good people stand by and do nothng to stop it. One has to ask oneself honestly if one is contributing to the evil or not. War, with very few exceptions, tend to exacerbate evil (to use a word I don't like) Who does the world routinely turn to? New Zealand? Switzerland? Japan? Europe? Russia? China? No, the USA. The USA is not perfect by any means, but at least we try, which is more than I can say about many other countries. If the world was a peaceful place and we all just got along then I'd be more than willing to even let the Swiss rule the world, but this is not fantasy island. The US is a superpower. Countries will act the same with the next superpower and won't think back to the good old days when the US was in charge like they don't think back to when Britain was in charge.

UtopianRanger -> RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation? (9/27/2006 2:01:01 AM)
Why do need to think in terms of a ''super power'' - Isn't that just more propaganda and brainwashing. Why can't the so-called ''free world'' just co-exist peacefully without attaching any enhancements to their social status? - R

Level -> RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation? (9/27/2006 4:05:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: MasterKalif We should also mention, as stated by Fukuyama I believe, that Japan uses "soft-core power" or power of culture as a means to influence the world favorably on Japan....this meaning their manga cartoons, their electronics, cars, etc. without having to prove they are a military threat to anyone. Hello A/all, The Japanese Constitution dictated to them at the close of World War 2 stated that they cannot spend more than 10% of their GNP on their military. 10% of however many billions or trillions of dollars their economy is worth is a lot of money, but since they are under the umbrella of the US military and really dont need to worry about things like war and defense, the Japanese have preferred to use their tremendous wealth to do things like acquire American banks (who hold the liens on American real estate) and retool their factories so they can sell cars to the US. It also provides them with a lot of surplus capital to use to curry favor among other nations. The Japanese have applied their cultural ideal of being polite to their international relations, and it has paid off for them. When you have a big bad friend in the neighborhood who will beat up anybody that messes with you, it is very easy to be nice to everybody. Just me, could be wrong, etc. Sinergy Sinergy, changes could be coming emphasis added TOKYO - Japan's new nationalist prime minister, Shinzo Abe, pledged to repair tattered relations with China, bolster his country's long-standing alliance with the United States, and overhaul the pacifist constitution after cruising to an easy victory yesterday in a parliamentary vote. Abe's road map would take Japan down a path toward a more robust military and a more assertive foreign policy, delineating a fresh direction for a leader who, at 52, is Japan's youngest prime minister and its first born after World War II. While Abe envisions a confident Japan that can step from the shadow of decades of postwar guilt, he conceded the country's foreign and security policy would still rest firmly on Tokyo's half-century-old alliance with the United States." http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/15616352.htm?source=rss&channel=inquirer_nation

philosophy -> RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation? (9/27/2006 5:18:09 AM)
"A nation must choose ... be popular, or be powerful." ..........a lesson from history perhaps? Or maybe there is another lesson to be learned here. All power of that sort is transitory, what if a nation made a commitment to be both? Go a bit further...what if a nation made a commitment to be powerful, popular and just?

philosophy -> RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation? (9/27/2006 5:20:31 AM)
"There will never be another country to supplant the US as the world leader because no other country will ever step up and become that leader. That is the way it has been for years, and that is the way it will continue to be." ...Ozymandias..........look on my works ye mighty and tremble........stupid arrogance never goes out of fashion. It's people like you estring that'll bring the US down if it ever does fall........because your arrogance makes you blind to the limits of power.

meatcleaver -> RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation? (9/27/2006 5:30:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy "A nation must choose ... be popular, or be powerful." ..........a lesson from history perhaps? Or maybe there is another lesson to be learned here. All power of that sort is transitory, what if a nation made a commitment to be both? Go a bit further...what if a nation made a commitment to be powerful, popular and just? Actually I can remember a time when the US was both powerful and VERY POPULAR. When I grew up, the US conjured up an idea of freedom and escape from dour northern English towns. I spent my teenage years listening to American music and reading American books. Culture is far more attractive and has a far powerful pull on the imagination than aircraft carriers and tanks. If you want alies, seduce them with your culture, not by sticking a gun in their face.

philosophy -> RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation? (9/27/2006 5:32:52 AM)
"Actually I can remember a time when the US was both powerful and VERY POPULAR." ....were they acting any more justly at the time?

meatcleaver -> RE: Who would you rather have as the most powerful nation? (9/27/2006 5:39:31 AM)
Naah. But Nixon was trying to get out of Vietnam, making friends with China, as well as not being as belligerent against the USSR. I guess it is more a matter of tone than substance, though maybe Nixon's foreign policy was more sensitive to the world at large.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.140625