Kashluk wrote:I'd rather see it done by a nation that's truly equal and democratic, instead of a country where people can't vote directly at their own candidate, where social welfare and helthcare systems make DDR look like a shining example of prosperity and where one man has enough power for the system to be considered anything but not a democracy (guess where Hitler came up with the idea of uniting the seats of prime minister/head of government and chancellor/head of state?). Come to think of it, I don't want to see it at all. Forced into a mold by an invading force, that is. If there should be change, it should happen from the inside supported from the outside, of course, but never ending up in a situation where outsiders come and begin dictating.
True democracies don't work. It's called mob rule. We everyone of our own officials. The electoral college is just another way of voting. We elect the electors, and the electors elect based on our votes. It's a much more fair system than pure election by popular vote because the president has to cater to every state and area, not just the areas with the big population. It forces issues.
And the executive branch does not have more power than any of the other two branches of government. I don't need to give a basic US civics lesson.
Define "lose".
To lose, in this context, would be either complete destruction or bowing down to another state.
One hurricane can cut deep in the American flesh
Not in terms of logistics, it didn't. Moral fiber maybe, but not anything that can't be rebuilt, or anything that can detrimentally harm the US.
so now let's think all theoretically and chit - what would an attack from the rest of the world cause? 6 200 000 000 versus 280 000 000, that's over 22 times more.
Manpower doesn't matter. What matters is the fact that the US spends more money on the military than any other state in the world. In fact, the US spends almost $650 billion on its military(
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm note that this figure includes the US military budget, plus the budgets for the current conflicts). The rest of the world, combined, only spends about $500 billion (
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ending.htm). The US spends more than every one else IN THE WORLD COMBINED. Not to mention the fact that the US is in the most geographically strategic position in the world. Getting troops in the mainland US would be virtually impossible, especially considering that the security dilemma that would pre-exist before a US vs World war would mean the US would drastically upgrade the defensive capabilities of mainland US.
USA is not self-sufficient
Actually, we're the most self sufficient state in the world. We have the natural resources to fully sustain the entire US population comfortably.
If only the oil-tap was closed it'd cause a major crisis, not to mention the abolishment of all current trade agreements, the closing of borders etc.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that if the rest of the world stopped trading oil to the US?
I'm pursuing a doctorate in political science
Well good luck on that one. I bet the project's going to move a heap forward once you finish high school
[/quote]
I'm glad to see that my knowledge is being appreciated in such a manner. Please go and take some higher education courses or something. Enlighten yourself to the facts. Do some research. Compare numbers. Otherwise, you'll just continue to sound ignorant.
<a href="http://www.duckandcover.cx">Duck and Cover: THE Site for all of your Fallout needs since 1998</a>
