war is just over the horizon........ 29 replies

Please wait...

Schofield VIP Member

om :A

319,570 XP

24th October 2007

1 Uploads

30,540 Posts

0 Threads

#21 6 years ago
D3matt;5695729When did it become a luxury to rely on imports?

When you're as big a nation with as big a populace as places like America and China, you're at a disadvantage because if you piss the world off, your supply line could disappear. America doesn't produce enough of its own stuff to sustain the population it has. If there were trade sanctions placed against them from places like Canada and Saudi Arabia, they'd effectively lose their ability to operate cars, planes, trains, and many other things. Not completely, mind you, but the country wouldn't be the same.

The American lifestyle relies too heavily on importing goods. I know a lot of other countries also rely heavily on importation, but not a lot of countries are anywhere near the size of America and play as big a role in global politics. If other nations took a stand against America for their actions, they could very well fall from grace (more so than they already are).




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,861 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,182 Posts

6 Threads

#22 6 years ago
Schofield;5695725Nuclear detterence for the win.

I used to think this way too. However, lately I've been thinking: Having to compete with other countries is what drives advancement. And the necessity for that advancement drives equality because people don't really invent if the system keeps all the smart people down and forces them to jump through nonsensical hoops and gives them no incentive to achieve.... If nukes had existed a hundred years and change ago, then even more of the world would still be living in abject poverty.

Inequality in America, for instance, is I think not going to be solved short of another revolution or an external power crushing America's ruling class.

So, what happens when governments can't lose to better governments, and when they have the military force to put down rebellions? It's just seems like you're going to end up with a giant fucking you in the arse, forever. Inequality will just skyrocket and we'll all end up as slaves to whoever controls the military, or in the near term future whoever controls the robots that take the place of the military.




Adrian Tepes Forum Mod

King Jellyfish

262,463 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,791 Posts

1,760 Threads

#23 6 years ago

Like these? =p

6662a.jpg

Actually, there's a History channel special on them:


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



Flash525

The Carbon Comrade

50 XP

14th July 2004

0 Uploads

15,103 Posts

0 Threads

#24 6 years ago

Darth Taxi;5695719Europe is the world so any war Europe is involved in is world war...duh.[/quote]I suppose the planet is flat too, huh? ;)

Darth Taxi;5695719Nuclear war is unlikely, bombs are just levers. It's almost like having an unsecured grenade in hand. You don't want to blow your self up but you want others to think you are capable of doing it.

That's it exactly, especially lately in the case of North Korea.

[QUOTE=Schofield;5695725]They shouldn't. But the fact that they can reflects poorly on the rest of the world (especially the super powers). When a country can go against the UN without repercussions, it means the other nations around the world have ultimately failed in their goal for true unity. If the countries of the UN aren't willing to take a stand against America (for things like the Iraq war for example), then maybe America does deserve to be the 'leader of the free world', because of how apathetic other nations are.

And therein lies out problem; our leaders. They're all weak. I can't say all for other nations, but hopefully, come the next General Election in the UK, UKIP will take over and leave the European Union.




Schofield VIP Member

om :A

319,570 XP

24th October 2007

1 Uploads

30,540 Posts

0 Threads

#25 6 years ago
Flash525;5695759And therein lies out problem; our leaders. They're all weak. I can't say all for other nations, but hopefully, come the next General Election in the UK, UKIP will take over and leave the European Union.

Weak leaders are really only weak because the people allow them to be. Stephen Harper (overlord of Canada) wanted to join America in Iraq. That didn't go over well with the people of Canada, nor most of the politicians. Canada didn't enter Iraq (militarily). Canadians have become really apathetic since then; Stephen Harper went from a minority government, to another minority government, to a majority, despite become extremely strict. At one point he only allowed the press to ask him three questions regarding policies. Our country has fallen since then. =p

I've always said that if a democratic country has a weak leader, it reflects on the people. Only authoritarian governments can have weak leaders and not have the people to blame.

So many people complain about their government but take literally no action to try and change anything. How many Americans have you seen online complain that their government is a corrupt plutocracy? I'm guessing a lot. I guarantee you that 90% of them haven't tried to take action, and I bet half of them don't take part in voting because they don't believe it matters. If you don't vote, keep your mouth shut because you're more of a problem at this point.

I guess I kind of went off topic there, but it's been a long day. In the end, apathy is a plague, and apathetic people deserve whatever hell-hole they live in.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,861 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,182 Posts

6 Threads

#26 6 years ago
Flash525;5695759And therein lies out problem; our leaders. They're all weak. I can't say all for other nations, but hopefully, come the next General Election in the UK, UKIP will take over and leave the European Union.

:uhh: What?

UKIP are climate change deniers, against gay marriage, propose laws that specifically pander to corporations and the extremely wealthy, and are set on bankrupting us with pointless defence spending. They're basically the worst vaguely plausible outcome possible.

And all to get out of the EU, like that's going to solve our governmental problems. :rolleyes:




Flash525

The Carbon Comrade

50 XP

14th July 2004

0 Uploads

15,103 Posts

0 Threads

#27 6 years ago

Schofield;5695765Weak leaders are really only weak because the people allow them to be. I've always said that if a democratic country has a weak leader, it reflects on the people. Only authoritarian governments can have weak leaders and not have the people to blame.[/quote]You're probably right, a lot of people probably are 'all talk' but then, where would you start?

In a country of millions, you're going to have a vast number of views, opinions and options. England (and the rest of the UK) is full of a variety of cultures from Muslim, Asian, British etc. You're never going to get a big enough group to do any damage. We've seen protests already, yet nothing ever came of it. Everyone that is desired first needs to go into Parliament, and then it needs to get the vote. If it doesn't get the vote, it doesn't get looked at again.

Our problem is that there are too many 'do-gooders' in this country. We need a government that is willing to act (in some cases, to spite the civilian community). Problem is, it'll never happen.

[QUOTE=Nemmerle;5695768]UKIP are climate change deniers, against gay marriage, propose laws that specifically pander to corporations and the extremely wealthy, and are set on bankrupting us with pointless defence spending. They're basically the worst vaguely plausible outcome possible.

They're not against homosexuals, or civil partnerships, only (for some reason) gay marriage. If they did take over, and wished to change the law (again) it would first have to go through parliament (again) would it not? I think it's safe to say that the law would stick.

I support UKIP because of their policies regarding immigration, criminal sentences (life sentences actually meaning life) and (what I've been told) their intent on reworking the benefit system. They're also suppose to be scrapping the human rights ballshit that allows so many corrupt people to have easier lives.

All the parties (including UKIP) wish to benefit the wealthy; they're the ones paying for them end-game. All forms of government, and all the parties we've got are full of corrupt, arrogant pricks. We're just here picking the best of a bad bunch, depending on what we want. One thing is for sure, it isn't going to be Nick Clegg or David Cameron running the country come 2014/2015.

Besides the fact, fewer people are getting married these days. Marriage doesn't mean what it once did, and there will come a time when it (along with the law surrounding it) becomes irrelevant.




D3matt

I take what n0e says way too seriously

27,515 XP

20th November 2007

0 Uploads

2,554 Posts

1 Threads

#28 6 years ago

Schofield;5695730When you're as big a nation with as big a populace as places like America and China, you're at a disadvantage because if you piss the world off, your supply line could disappear. America doesn't produce enough of its own stuff to sustain the population it has. If there were trade sanctions placed against them from places like Canada and Saudi Arabia, they'd effectively lose their ability to operate cars, planes, trains, and many other things. Not completely, mind you, but the country wouldn't be the same.

The American lifestyle relies too heavily on importing goods. I know a lot of other countries also rely heavily on importation, but not a lot of countries are anywhere near the size of America and play as big a role in global politics. If other nations took a stand against America for their actions, they could very well fall from grace (more so than they already are).

At least we have SOME resources of our own. Little countries like Luxembourg have nothing at all.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#29 6 years ago
Flash525;5695759I suppose the planet is flat too, huh? ;)

You said exactly what I was thinking. :)




Fortune

something to believe.

50 XP

19th February 2005

0 Uploads

7,750 Posts

0 Threads

#30 6 years ago
Nemmerle;5695744 Inequality in America, for instance, is I think not going to be solved short of another revolution or an external power crushing America's ruling class.

Please elaborate. What kind of inequality are you referring to specifically, and in that context what would the word 'solved' mean to you?