Superpowers - USA #1 forever?

<p>"So? New immigrants in America also tend to gather in China town, or Little Italy or whatever.</p>

<p>You are saying that Americans move abroad but don't try to assimilate, because they want to maintain their "Americanness"? That's preposterous, because I live in America, and I want nothing to do with mainstream American politics or pop American culture."</p>

<p>Yes, but Americans abroad don't have to make an effort to gather in their own places. The default is not assimilation.</p>

<p>Also, mainstream or pop culture does not comprise the entirety of culture. In many places, the alternatives to the mainstream are also Western.</p>

<p>"pop American culture"</p>

<p>Hate to break it to you..but this is everywhere. Unless you plan to live in Greenland or Siberia or the heart of Africa.</p>

<p>There is as much European and Asian influence in the US as their is US influence in Europe and Asia. That does not mean that France, Italy, Greece or Japan are in any way similar to the US and vice versa.</p>

<p>Are you saying that in between bites of your Big Mac or whilst sipping your Coke?</p>

<p>^ Lol................</p>

<p>Yes, just as Donald T. is dining with future investors at Alain Ducasse and taking his guests to Les Mis after dinner!</p>

<p>And your whole claim that how "America is way ahead of everyone else in military capacity" is nothing more than typical American arrogance. </p>

<p>Sure, America spends a lot of money on its military, but winning a war is not just about having the best equipments and the most money, it is also about having the best and most numerous soldiers. If American military were so good and stuff, why isn't America carpet bombing North Korea right now? Why is it even trying to negotiate with Iran, why not just bomb it back to the Stone Age?</p>

<p>And no, it is not because America is peaceful and trying to be diplomatic. America is by far the most militaristic country in the world, the only reason it is not attacking North Korea and Iran because it is too tied up in Iraq, and it is already overdeploying the 90% of the troops, Bush knows that military actions against N Korea and Iran would further expose the weaknesses of the U.S. military. The people that are behind these wars, the rich corporates would never send their children to fight, and the lower class folks that make the majority of any country's army absolutely despise these American imperialist wars. </p>

<p>This is the core reason why American military might appear dominant, but it is nothing more than a paper tiger. The soldiers that make up America's army do not truly believe in what they are fighting for, and they will never fight as well as the foreign resistance fighters. It was not a freak accident that America lost in Korea and Vietnam, and it is not a surprise that America is losing the war in Iraq, and that Afghanistan is slipping back into the control of the Al-queda and Russo-China sphere of influence.</p>

<p>China actually has the largest standing army, or so I've heard, at over a million people.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sure, America spends a lot of money on its military, but winning a war is not just about having the best equipments and the most money, it is also about having the best and most numerous soldiers. If American military were so good and stuff, why isn't America carpet bombing North Korea right now?

[/quote]
They have nukes. Next point.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This is the core reason why American military might appear dominant, but it is nothing more than a paper tiger. The soldiers that make up America's army do not truly believe in what they are fighting for, and they will never fight as well as the foreign resistance fighters.

[/quote]
They will never fight as well as foreign resistance fighters? Has the US actually lost a land battle in the last 50 years? Wouldn't that imply that the US has better fighters?</p>

<p>Hint: The answer is no.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It was not a freak accident that America lost in Korea and Vietnam, and it is not a surprise that America is losing the war in Iraq, and that Afghanistan is slipping back into the control of the Al-queda and Russo-China sphere of influence.

[/quote]
America lost the war in Korea? News to me.</p>

<p>One does not advance by victory. Sadly, many have ignored negatives and thus, they have collapsed. But defeat is not the solution either. :p</p>

<p>If America did not lose the war in korea, why does North Korea even exist today? </p>

<p>Go read up on history. After the longest retreat of a military division in American history in the Korean War, even Douglas MacArthur, a rabid imperialist that demanded nuclear assault of China, conceded that 'those Commies put up a good fight.' </p>

<p>Translation: "Yeah, we got raped by the Chinese who had nothing but basic infantry weapons, while we were armed to the teeth."</p>

<p>
[quote]
"Yeah, we got raped by the Chinese who had nothing but basic infantry weapons, while we were armed to the teeth."

[/quote]

Why? And can this be translated into other areas as well, such as education, etc.,?</p>

<p>um, so you are agreeing with that point then? </p>

<p>this is called "dropping an argument" if you've had any sort of exposure to debating.</p>

<p>What do you mean by education? Asian and European students rape American students in most disciplines at international competitions. </p>

<p>Last time I checked, the U.S. mathematics Olympiad team was mostly minorities too, mostly Jews and Asians.</p>

<p>Yes, I am agreeing with you. -_-</p>

<p>It's all because of Bush that America's economy is suffering ( well more than before) and he is the one to blame because of the terrible condition of America's present-day military.</p>

<p>"American military were so good and stuff, why isn't America carpet bombing North Korea right now? Why is it even trying to negotiate with Iran, why not just bomb it back to the Stone Age?"</p>

<p>If you intend to argue a point, I might suggest using proper grammer. As for your statements here, it is well known that America could bomb any nation back to the stone age (as could any other nation with nuclear capabilities). The point of diplomacy is to promote a world where nuclear weapons will never become the norm (or to at least prolong world destruction). If America were to bomb Iran or North Korea "back to the stone age" without any international political support, international relations would fall apart and retaliations would be devastating. </p>

<p>"The soldiers that make up America's army do not truly believe in what they are fighting for, and they will never fight as well as the foreign resistance fighters. "</p>

<p>You're kidding right? It's funny that you can make such a broad sweeping statement. Upon what evidence do you base this? As much as I'd like to agree with you (that America's soldiers don't actually want to be at war), many soldiers I have met thoroughly enjoy their lives - which is what concerns me the most.</p>

<p>"If America did not lose the war in korea, why does North Korea even exist today?"</p>

<p>Nobody was victorious. The Korean War ended in an armistice that continues to this day. Again, if you intend to argue a point it's important to provide support. In this case, you'll need some historical data. In fact, the war started when North Korea made a surprise attack on South Korea with the intention of capturing the entire peninsula, but in the end they were forced back by the United States. The results, according to Wikipedia:</p>

<p>"Ceasefire; United Nations tactical victory; strategic stalemate; continued partition of Korea; failure of North Korean goal to unify Korean peninsula"</p>

<p>Not a US loss, and certainly not a North Korean victory. The US never intended to conquer North Korea...Macarthur acted against Truman's orders - it was his decision, not that of the government.</p>

<p>"the Chinese who had nothing but basic infantry weapons"</p>

<p>This is not true.</p>

<p>Americans have got lazier...they don't strive for excellence anymore whereas the chinese and Indian are hungry for success. This will be the downfall of the US.</p>

<p>^^Agreed. But I wouldn't limit the term "lazy" to Americans only. Disregarding Germany, it would seem that Europe's work ethic is very similar to that of the US.</p>