RE: Damnit.
>!) They're too full of themselves.
>Any country that thinks they're
>the best in the world,
>without a doubt, has an
>ego the size of well....
>Canada.
Well it isn't without reason. As the most highly advanced and prosperous nation in history, controlling nearly a fourth of the world's GDP, with the most advanced military on Earth (yes, I will concede that the Swiss army is the best trained), I would say the ego is justified, maybe not needed, but justified.
Yeah, maybe this hubris will be the downfall, but I don't see it anytime soon.
>2) Even more full of themselves,
>the whole situation a while
>back with that dude Slobodon
>Milosevic (sorry for the name
>spelling) was warranted in my
>opinion, but it also brings
>up 1 thing, and that
>is that the U.S will
>bomb anything that so much
>as breathes a word of
>opposistion to the Red White
>and Blue.
However you must also figure that it was in the national interest to shut down Milosevic and help out the Kosovars. That region was the starting center of both World Wars, and tension put on neighboring countries such as Macedonia which had to contend with millions of refugees, causes instability.
Yeah, it may seem that the United States is overstepping its bounds in some cases, but quite frankly, as the most powerful nation, it can and should act to police some of the problems in the world. What happens if this does not happen is that the nation becomes laxed and lethargic. For instance Ancient China had some of the most advanced technology, armies, and navies capable of taking over the planet. Unfortunately the emperor shut down the nation and returned it to isolationalism in order to build up internally. This left it vulnerable as other nations progressed, and China was left without trade influenced, technology, and other sources of advancement.
>You don't agree
>with the U.S? Well enjoy
>the Tomahawk Missle they'll shove
>up your ass in response.
Yeah, but realistically, we didn't get to where we are by being a nice guy. If you don't take the initiative, you're going to be stuck in the back.
>as with Rome, the U.S will
>crumble under the weight of
>it's own self glory. Now,
>while I haven't studied the
>Romans too much, a lot
>of things are being repeated
>by the states. They're overextending
>their power, much as the
>Roman Empire did with their
>borders and Military.
There is a huge difference between Ancient Rome and the Modern USA. #1, Rome was build on conquering other nations in order to keep the troops busy and to expand its territories. Once there was nothing more to conquer, the nation fell into disrepair as the ruling body became more and more corrupt and nickle and dime attacks from invaders slowly picked away at the nation. Another problem was the large plagues which swept through the nation, leaving it very weak.
You also have to remember that Rome was build on fighting with infantry and that the nation was connected to a lot of locations where it could be attacked by land. Relatively speaking, the greatest factor in the United States's prosperity until recently, has been that it is quite isolated from other nations and the nations that border it are usually quite friendly. In this modern age, wars are won by long-range weaponry, not men. Men are there only to secure the location after it has been defeated. That's why we spend aout $1,000,000 per cruise missile to take out our targets, because it is better to stay out of the fray and destroy targets from afar than to actually get in and destroy it. This was evident when we sent Apaches to Serbia. They were gunned down and didn't do a whole lot of good. The "smart bombs" were what won that "war."
>The U.S are practically undefeated in
>combat, and have the most
>powerful army in the world
>(much as the romans) but,
>as the romans were eventually
>defeated by internal strife and
>their military so overextended past
>their core borders, so will
>the U.S.
We're not overextended. The United States isn't out to take over countries, Rome was. Except for the purchase of Alaska, the United States has stayed practically the same size since it formed.
Rome fell to internal strife because it was a primitive Republic that often fell to Caesars. This was, for the most part, because the country was military-oriented and sought strong leaders. The biggest problems we have here are the Republicans and Democrats.
The United States concentrates on *trade* more than anything. Rome concentrated on acquiring nations to tax. Nearly all the recent "wars" were to combat threats to trade. The anti-communist wars (Korea, Vietnam) were fought to prevent communism from spreading and hampering trade. We protect our own interests as would any nation.
But, I would
>like to say, that after
>viewing the facts that I
>do know, I truly feel
>that the U.S. will fall
>in the future, and the
>sad part is, that I
>also feel that half of
>the world will be falling
>with them.
I predict if the USA falls, so will the rest of the world, that will be World War III.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
. Besdies if Canada and the US and Mexico, were annexed we would have the great mix of Weapons of Mass Desruction, and a giant ego (from the U.S), Trees, comedians and Ice (from Canada) and Tequilla from Mexico. WE WOULD BE UNSTOPPABLE!!!!! 
