Staying on this side of the Atlantic

[a6m5]

The startling truth is that in a world war between the U.S. and every other nation on the planet, the U.S. would win, without using a single nuke.

While there is no doubt the U.S. has the strongest military in the world, if there was a World War between the U.S. against "every other nations", I think the U.S. will lose. I mean, think about it. China, (rest of)NATO, Russia, and tens of other smaller, but formidable militaries. China has the numbers, Russia and NATO has the ships, planes and some of the best troops in the world.

If it was the U.S. + the Allies(NATO, Israel, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, etc.) against the rest of the world, I'd say they will most likely win.

If the nukes were used, then everybody loses.

 

[Duke]

The point is that you talk about having sufficient backup for people's claims, while you're the one talking nonsense. You say the US is the biggest power ever, when just a glance at history shows you at least five different cultures that dominated the earth before.

Please explain where danoff said that no other cultures had ever been powerful. He's claiming - rightfully and truthfully - that the US is currently the most powerful nation on Earth, and in the history of mankind.

This is literally true: the current American military would kick the Roman Empire to the curb without breaking a sweat, despite the fact that Rome once directly controlled 80% of the Western world.

Again, please demonstrate where danoff said that there have never been powerful nations other than the US. He simply made a point of fact that no nation has ever been as powerful as the US is today, in absolute strength.

Seriously, your "We are the most powerful nation in the history of man, and that is why people can't stand us" speech is very hateful and retarded. It's not about power. It's about respect. The one you lack towards foreigners, because you assume that because your country is more powerful than the others, people should idolize you.

One more time: please demonstrate where danoff said this. Show me where danoff - or any American - has said that you should idolize us for our power. I believe you are the one who is reading between the lines and making assumptions, and I believe you are the one who is developing an aggressive attitude.

Hence my point about Americans having short patience with hypocrisy.

 

[Small_Fryz]

Duke you must compare apples with apples.

Romans owned 80% of the world they knew!. While U.S could kick their arse in a fight, back then the Romans could kick the rest of the world probably easier than the U.S can kick the rest of the world now.

Its like saying, I have $50000 now so I must be richer than a 🤬 load of people who lived back in 1900.

This isn't true, in today you need more money then back then. A new car for $300 compared to now for $30,000. This means my 50,000 now is only worth $500 back in 1900.

This is what makes it hard to say Michael Schumacher is better than Fangio, and the U.S are more powerful than Roman's.

You can not compare Apples with apples as its simply to hard.

 

[Zardoz]

While there is no doubt the U.S. has the strongest military in the world, if there was a World War between the U.S. against "every other nations", I think the U.S. will lose. I mean, think about it. China, (rest of)NATO, Russia, and tens of other smaller, but formidable militaries. China has the numbers, Russia and NATO has the ships, planes and some of the best troops in the world.

If it was the U.S. + the Allies(NATO, Israel, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, etc.) against the rest of the world, I'd say they will most likely win.

If the nukes were used, then everybody loses.

Damn right about everybody losing once the first nuke is detonated.

Don't get me wrong. The level of U.S. military might is just silly. Like I said, its a relic of the cold war. Our military-industrial complex, which did such a good job of balancing out the military power of the Soviet Union, has become self-perpetuating. It has truly taken on a life of its own. We don't need all this military capability, but its there. It exists, and you have no idea what it can do.

In that absurd U.S.-versus-the-world scenario I brought up, ground troops would play no part, so forget them. The amazing fact remains that our air and naval forces actually could do what I said: Eliminate the rest of the world's air forces and navies, leaving only millions of ground troops, and we know what happens to troops when they are attacked from the air in the 21st century...

 

[Kylehnat]

Duke you must compare apples with apples.

Romans owned 80% of the world they knew!. While U.S could kick their arse in a fight, back then the Romans could kick the rest of the world probably easier than the U.S can kick the rest of the world now.

Possibly, but they didn't have the means to do it. They conquered the Mediterranean, but were they feared by tribes in southern Africa? No. Did those tribes even know the Romans existed? No. Even if the Roman empire wanted to take over the whole world, they couldn't do it for lack of mobility. Current militaries have the capability of being anywhere in the world in the blink of an eye.

Duke was careful to use the term absolute power, rather than relative power. Who was more powerful: the Romans back then, or the US now? That is comparing apples to oranges, but on an absolute scale, the US is more powerful, simply because of the ability to move, and weapons have advanced a little bit in the last couple of millenia.

(This is a huge tangent from the original topic, isn't it )

 

[a6m5]

Damn right about everybody losing once the first nuke is detonated.

Don't get me wrong. The level of U.S. military might is just silly. Like I said, its a relic of the cold war. Our military-industrial complex, which did such a good job of balancing out the military power of the Soviet Union, has become self-perpetuating. It has truly taken on a life of its own. We don't need all this military capability, but its there. It exists, and you have no idea what it can do.

In that absurd U.S.-versus-the-world scenario I brought up, ground troops would play no part, so forget them. The amazing fact remains that our air and naval forces actually could do what I said: Eliminate the rest of the world's air forces and navies, leaving only millions of ground troops, and we know what happens to troops when they are attacked from the air in the 21st century...

I don't know, Z. In this exciting scenario(as a fantasy), I think Russia and NATO has enough mobility, from air and sea, to land on American soil. Rest of the world, lead by China will land from Canada and Mexico(both enemies of the U.S.) and work the North and South of the border. Once they are inside the U.S. border, massive ground forces will be unstoppable, even by air IMO.

I'm not saying I'm right or you're wrong. Just my take.

 

[Diego440]

danoff and Duke, I apologize. Sincerely.

Perhaps I tried reading too much between the lines. The fact that there is no tone in a typed message means that the reader is the one who has to set the tone. If the reader is set to assume the tone is aggressive, he/she will read the message as aggressive. And I have to admit I've put on an aggressive/pedantic tone on danoff's comments. My bad.

What I'm sure is that it's not that people don't like the US because their country is less powerful. I think it has nothing to do with military. If you'll remember correctly (danoff, I don't know your age, but bear with me on this one; Duke, I know you're contemporary to these events) During the cold war, Americans were taught to hate the Russians. Not because of their military... in fact, there wasn't a real reason... at least not when I was a kid in the US. Movies, the news, advertising, everything taught us we should hate the Soviets. We were taught that everything that is red is bad; and that good things are only red, white and blue. And after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we saw the Russians weren't all that bad. And because of that, a lot of people felt cheated by the US. I think the root cause of the world's escalating hate towards the US is that manipulation of the truth. And the fact that GWB is the "poster boy" for it.

I think it was Swift who commented that the matter of being a "powerful" nation would be very debatable by what we know as power. For what we're looking for, Power could be defined as "a strength to influence events throughout the world". That's the power I'm talking about. Not military size or quantity of armament, or level of technicity. If we were going by that, I think China would be then considered more powerful, since their army is bigger.

And the fact is that the US has somewhat power, but not as much power as the Romans did. The Romans were deities in their time. What they did has served as the basis of society as we know it. The basic things we do nowadays were created by them. That is power. The power of the US right now is nothing compared to that. Especially since the US has alienated enemies and allies. Seriously, that is not power... it's bullying. And that's one of the reasons the US is so despised in the rest of the world.

I stand by my statement. We are the most powerful nation in the history of man, and that is why people can't stand us (they also can't stand us because we know it).

Seriosuly, the US cannot be considered the most powerful nation in the history of man. There's just no point of comparison. Especially since the US has no power over any country other than their own... except Iraq, it seems nowadays. They may be the most powerful nation NOW. I'll give you that, but with a very limited spectrum and nto for very long.

So, to conclude, I extend my apologies to the affected parts. danoff was stating a fact and I took it personally. For that, I apologize and take back the aggression towards him. However, I think danoff is wrong on the power issue.


I think the thread can be closed now, since the reason for aggression seems not to be the origin of the people, but the mood and the predisposition towards people from different countries.

 

[Small_Fryz]

It has been a very intresting topic 👍, and I had a lot of fun debating and constructing my posts 👍

I too feel that the thread's topic has been answered a few posts back, however this new spin off topic has been interesting none the less 👍

I must say that i agree with most of the above post 👍

 

[Duke]

danoff and Duke, I apologize. Sincerely.

Perhaps I tried reading too much between the lines. The fact that there is no tone in a typed message means that the reader is the one who has to set the tone. If the reader is set to assume the tone is aggressive, he/she will read the message as aggressive. And I have to admit I've put on an aggressive/pedantic tone on danoff's comments. My bad.

Apology accepted, and appreciated.

During the cold war, Americans were taught to hate the Russians. Not because of their military... in fact, there wasn't a real reason... at least not when I was a kid in the US. Movies, the news, advertising, everything taught us we should hate the Soviets. We were taught that everything that is red is bad; and that good things are only red, white and blue. And after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we saw the Russians weren't all that bad.

Maybe I'm a different case, but I don't recall being taught that Russians were bad - the underlying theme of my formative years is that Communism is bad, and I believe that to this day. As long as I can remember I've harbored no ill will against the Russian people in general. Now, against the Soviets, in other words the totalitarian Commmunist imperialists, I have an intense dislike. But in general I've always considered the average Russian to be a victim of his own government.

And because of that, a lot of people felt cheated by the US. I think the root cause of the world's escalating hate towards the US is that manipulation of the truth. And the fact that GWB is the "poster boy" for it.

...but it's true: Communism is evil. I fail to see how that's a manipulation of truth, and since its failure virtually everywhere except mainland China (which is trying to forestall a similar collapse by liberalizing its own economy), I fail to see why that serves as a basis for resentment against the US.

I think it was Swift who commented that the matter of being a "powerful" nation would be very debatable by what we know as power. For what we're looking for, Power could be defined as "a strength to influence events throughout the world". That's the power I'm talking about. Not military size or quantity of armament, or level of technicity. If we were going by that, I think China would be then considered more powerful, since their army is bigger.

Their army may be bigger, but I would place the greater technological force and much greater training levels of the US military at a considerable advantage over the simple numbers of the Chinese army. This is not to say that China is not militarily powerful. But in terms of projecting force, I don't think they have reach in proportion to their weight.

And the fact is that the US has somewhat power, but not as much power as the Romans did. The Romans were deities in their time. What they did has served as the basis of society as we know it. The basic things we do nowadays were created by them. That is power. The power of the US right now is nothing compared to that.

I think this is highly debatable. I think the US has created many things, both physical and non-physical, that are every bit as powerful and influential as the Romans in their day... without the need to be revered as deities.

Especially since the US has alienated enemies and allies. Seriously, that is not power... it's bullying. And that's one of the reasons the US is so despised in the rest of the world.

Please bear with me while I answer this with a question: why is it that the US is despised for "manipulating the truth" and "bullying", when no other nation in the world, many of which are engaging in the exact same behaviours, are not despised?

Were not the Soviets masters of both manipulating the truth and bullying? Yet supposedly no one except us well-trained red-white-and-blue idiots despises the Russians.

Are not the French guilty of manipulating the truth, in the form of the Oil-For-Food scandal, and the antics of their own multiply-reelected President? Yet supposedly no one except Americans desipises the French.

Was not Saddam Hussein a master of manipulating the truth and bullying, albeit at a smaller scale than the Politburo? Yet he's close to being portrayed as an innocent victim in many parts of the world, even in the West... and of course the US had no justification for removing this lying bully from power.

Seriosuly, the US cannot be considered the most powerful nation in the history of man. There's just no point of comparison. Especially since the US has no power over any country other than their own...

Then why is Eastern culture, and particularly radical conservative Islam, so hysterical in their hatred of the Great Satan? Could it possibly be that they fear the power and influence that the US culture has over their own? I'm not even talking about military might; I'm talking about the influence and power of Western ideas, especially those from the US.

I think the thread can be closed now, since the reason for aggression seems not to be the origin of the people, but the mood and the predisposition towards people from different countries.

It can be both. I don't claim that Americans are not belligerent. Some are belligerent all the time, and some are belligerent some times. But I do believe that this GTPlanet world is a microcosm of the real world. Go read some posts on the Automotive board or the GT4 board. You'll be surprised at how often "America sucks" comes up, no matter how irrelevent or untrue the basis of that assumption. I'm continually dumbfounded at how the most culturally and racially diverse nation on the planet is perceived as a nation of rich fat white guys who hate everybody else. Again, while I make no claim that Americans are never the agressors, I don't think we tend to throw that kind of behaviour at the world.

After all, there is a user here named I_h8_GWB... and there is no user named I_h8_Howard or I_h8_TB.

 

[Diego440]

I don't recall being taught that Russians were bad - the underlying theme of my formative years is that Communism is bad, and I believe that to this day. As long as I can remember I've harbored no ill will against the Russian people in general. Now, against the Soviets, in other words the totalitarian Commmunist imperialists, I have an intense dislike. But in general I've always considered the average Russian to be a victim of his own government.

True... it was the Communists that were bad. Movies like Top Gun and Rocky IV I think are very important movies in their time and they exemplified this hate I'm talking about.

I think this is highly debatable. I think the US has created many things, both physical and non-physical, that are every bit as powerful and influential as the Romans in their day... without the need to be revered as deities.

True as well. But the Romans were the first to do that. It's like saying the Stones are better than The Beatles. They may be, but the Beatles were the first, and that's why they're considered best. Plus, in the early years of Anno Domini, there weren't as many cultures as nowadays, so that may add a bit to the adoration of the Romans as creators of the world.

Are not the French guilty of manipulating the truth, in the form of the Oil-For-Food scandal, and the antics of their own multiply-reelected President? Yet supposedly no one except Americans desipises the French.

That's not true... I mean, not only the US despise the French. True, we share the EU with them, but we're also very aware of how much of a 🤬 Chirac is. But the French constitution allows for multiple reelections. As does the Italian and Spanish too, and Berlusconi is of similar type.

Was not Saddam Hussein a master of manipulating the truth and bullying, albeit at a smaller scale than the Politburo? Yet he's close to being portrayed as an innocent victim in many parts of the world, even in the West... and of course the US had no justification for removing this lying bully from power.

That is also true. The reason was the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue, and that's been proven false. Berlusconi's opposers also found some strong proof against it in the form of false correspondence. And the Abu-Ghrahib (sp?) prison case, and several other things. Anyway, because of these causes, the US is being portrayed as the big bad wolf. But GWB and his crew seem to be happy with that, and they do things internationally that seem to taunt the rest of the world.

What people argue (Euros, and possibly others) is that it's clear that Saddam was a murderer and a totalitarian bastard. But, why the hurry to attack him? Why not attack Fidel Castro, who's been in power longer and could be a bigger threat... or why not Hugo Chavez, since his country supplies about 40% of the oil consumed in the US and has said countless times that he won't be selling more. Why not take them out, as they took Noriega out. Why not go against China, who is a bigger threat to the world's economy, with their low cost manufacture.

The main issue on the war is that the US doesn't have experience fighting a war in its own homeland. And that's the sole reason why the rest of Europe wouldn't want to go to war. Spain sent troops, although 96% of the country opposed it. During WWII and the Spanish Civil War, rat, cat and dog population was almost eliminated... that gives you a good idea of the levels of desperation these people suffered. Of course, I'm not trying to martirize (sp?) anyone, but it gives you a good idea as to why no one supports the war on this side of the Atlantic.

Then why is Eastern culture, and particularly radical conservative Islam, so hysterical in their hatred of the Great Satan? Could it possibly be that they fear the power and influence that the US culture has over their own? I'm not even talking about military might; I'm talking about the influence and power of Western ideas, especially those from the US.

That is a very good question: Why. According to some experts, it's because they indeed despise our western way of life. It can also be because this way of life is threatening to destroy their way of life, which has existed for over a thousand years. The Koran supports the defence of their society, at whatever the cost. Remember, Islamism dominates Arab societies, and contrary to most of the world, politics is part of religion.

...But I do believe that this GTPlanet world is a microcosm of the real world. Go read some posts on the Automotive board or the GT4 board. You'll be surprised at how often "America sucks" comes up, no matter how irrelevent or untrue the basis of that assumption. I'm continually dumbfounded at how the most culturally and racially diverse nation on the planet is perceived as a nation of rich fat white guys who hate everybody else.

I know, I'v read it many times. I'm not new here And usually, the America Sucks comes from people who either have never been to the US or worse still, don't know what they're talking about. I've had people tell me that personally off-line, and I sit and try to convince them why they're wrong. Some get it... some are too belligerent to even open their minds a tad. So it goes both ways.

Again, while I make no claim that Americans are never the agressors, I don't think we tend to throw that kind of behaviour at the world.

As I said before, it goes both ways. Perhaps I've met too many aggressive ones in a short period of time. But it also depends who you talk to. Obviously, Americans don't throw that behaviour towards other Americans. But the aggressive ones would be quick to point out how their country is better than others to foreigners... and if these foreigners come up and call them supid, fat, lazy bigoted bastards, all the worse. Get the point?

After all, there is a user here named I_h8_GWB...

You know, I've seen that user around, and up until now, I didn't make the connection of what GWB meant. 💡

 

[Duke]

I believe this thread still has a lot of merit, so I split the "US vs the world" strategic discussion off into its own thread. However, I'd like to leave this open for further discussion of the original topic.