The Reason The U.S.A Will Fall

[gabrielzero]

...


*cough*


Alright now that I've gotten your attention, I suppose a better topic for this might be 'The reason the USA will not fall'.

We question. We doubt everything. We doubt the intelligence of our president, we doubt his competence, we doubt if the government as a whole is telling us the truth. Our motives for war, our actions in the war, our treatment of POWs, everything. We always look for the worst possible thing that's happening, then wave it up high for the entire world to see. It is through this process that we have aquired a horrendous reputation with the rest of the world. Ironically, it's alwo what makes us a wonderful nation.

You see, when you aim that much scrutiny at any practice that even might be unscrupulous, it's impossible for anyone to actually get away with anything. By looking at all of our horrible parts we learn our own moral weaknesses, and we eliminate them. We seek out and destroy all of the most dangerous parts of our society as quickly as we can, ensuring that it stays as healthy and as just as possible.

It's gotten to the point where even the best of people can barely stand the onslaught. I hate President Bush. I can honestly say that I think he does what he does with the best intentions, but that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with them. I don't doubt for a moment that he is at least moderately intelligent, with a sensible mind and a honest personality. But at the same time, I think there are much more qualified individuals who could have his position (note: Kerry is not one of them. I would hesitate to classify any politician as a competent leader.) And here's the best part:

All of this doubt, all of these questions I ask, all of it is the best thing I can do to help the country. Unpatriotic my ass. Who the **** defines 'Patriotism' anyway? George Washington was a true patriot - but not only did he support rebellion, he actually led an army against the old government! This was an extreme example, but the point is there. A patriot is not someone who blindly follows their government, but someone who seeks to improve it, even through force if the situation is dire enough.

So the next time you see a protest or hear someone insult our leader, smile. Smile knowing that it is these people that keep our government clean and honest. They are the ones who makes sure our country stays the best that it can be by accepting nothing less.

[Sasquatch]

There's a difference in questioning and insulting. Question our government all you want. It's our responsibility, our obligation. We should question everything they do. But as for insulting, conspiracy theories, and undermining authority, that doesn't help anything at all.

Your original title is correct. The United States of America will not fall to a foreign invasion, but tear itself apart from the inside. And that is the reason -- insults, conspiracy theories, and the undermining of our government. Question should be present, baseless accusations should not.

[gabrielzero]

While Iraq and the United States have never been on good terms, examine the behavior of the country:
1) Resistance in letting United Nations officials into top-secret locations for weapons inspections.
I can understand this completely - it's a matter of their national security. No country would want to divulge all of their military secrets to anyone else, regardless of how confidential the inspectors might claim the proceedings are. Also consider this; Iraq's military suffered a devastating blow during the first Gulf War, under Bush Sr. By releasing to the United Nations exactly what their defensive capabilities are, anyone who has a bone to pick with them will know exactly what to expect, even more so if their military is in a shoddy state (which, judging from the invasion, it was). Now consider that one of their neighbors, Iran, has had a long history of being hostile towards them, even so far as an outright war back in the 80's. Iran is also a member of the United Nations, and would conceivably have access to the results of the Iraq investigation. If this isn't screaming 'security threat' to you, it should. Imagine if, for whatever reason, the United States had to forego all forms of security ans allow inspectors to search the Pentagon, White House, and every other major military point for some form of check, knowing that Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China, etc, all would be able to access the resulting data.
2) Iraqi rhetoric against the US
While Iraq has frequently attacked the US (and other nations) verbally, also consider that so have the French. And Germans, Iranians, North Koreans, Cubans, and bunches of other nations, some of which pose a much more significant threat than the ruler of a third-world country on the opposite side of the world.
3) 'Housing terrorists'
Afghanistan, Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Israel all have been known for problems with terrorists. Less recently, Ireland. It's known that there are terrorist groups within countries such as France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and even the United States. South America is never quite stable and, if Josef Mengele can hide there for thirty plus years, faceless terrorist minions would find it an easy task. Much of Africa is in a constant state of upheaval, and some countries simply can not control every square mile of their territory to keep training camps from poppingup, regardless of their feelings towards terrorist groups.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by gabrielzero

1) Resistance in letting United Nations officials into top-secret locations for weapons inspections.
I can understand this completely - it's a matter of their national security. No country would want to divulge all of their military secrets to anyone else, regardless of how confidential the inspectors might claim the proceedings are.

They didn't have an option. Since they couldn't be trusted not to use their chemical and biological weapons, the UN placed sanctions on them, including required inspections. If Saddam had kept his finger off the button for the past twenty years, none of that would have been required.

Also consider this; Iraq's military suffered a devastating blow during the first Gulf War, under Bush Sr. By releasing to the United Nations exactly what their defensive capabilities are, anyone who has a bone to pick with them will know exactly what to expect, even more so if their military is in a shoddy state (which, judging from the invasion, it was). Now consider that one of their neighbors, Iran, has had a long history of being hostile towards them, even so far as an outright war back in the 80's. Iran is also a member of the United Nations, and would conceivably have access to the results of the Iraq investigation. If this isn't screaming 'security threat' to you, it should.

Yes. They did something stupid, and they were taken down for it. The answer isn't to let them build back up with even more deadly weapons and do something stupid again, the answer is to make sure they don't build up again. Iran wouldn't really have access to Iraq's information unless they were on the council for it -- and I doubt the UN would be so foolish as to put a known enemy of Iraq in control of their military intelligence. Even if Iran did decide to invade them, Iraq was still a weakened country with sanctions on it, and the UN would have (or at least should have) defended them.

By the way, don't use the swiftness and efficiency of an invasion as evidence for a weak Iraq, but moreso a strong Coalition.

Imagine if, for whatever reason, the United States had to forego all forms of security ans allow inspectors to search the Pentagon, White House, and every other major military point for some form of check, knowing that Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China, etc, all would be able to access the resulting data.

If we decided Mexico should be part of America and invaded it, and the UN came in and beat us back, then yes, that would be understandable. Because we'd deserve it.

2) Iraqi rhetoric against the US
While Iraq has frequently attacked the US (and other nations) verbally, also consider that so have the French. And Germans, Iranians, North Koreans, Cubans, and bunches of other nations, some of which pose a much more significant threat than the ruler of a third-world country on the opposite side of the world.

Most of the other countries that have "attacked the U.S. verbally" haven't threatened to launch nuclear, biological, and chemical attacks against the U.S., and aren't known for blitzing into neighboring countries to cancel national debts. (Save Germany, a long time ago, and North Korea.) Nobody posed a more significant threat to the United States and United States interests than Saddam Hussein.

3) 'Housing terrorists'
Afghanistan, Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Israel all have been known for problems with terrorists. Less recently, Ireland. It's known that there are terrorist groups within countries such as France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and even the United States. South America is never quite stable and, if Josef Mengele can hide there for thirty plus years, faceless terrorist minions would find it an easy task. Much of Africa is in a constant state of upheaval, and some countries simply can not control every square mile of their territory to keep training camps from poppingup, regardless of their feelings towards terrorist groups.

There's a huge difference in having "problems with terrorists" and state-sponsored terrorism. Yes, there are terrorists all over the world. No, most of these terrorists (well, outside the Middle East) aren't supported by a government. Saddam, on the other hand, built training camps and provided weapons and funding and information to Al-Queda. That's not even going into their hatred of Israel and Saddam's $25,000 checks to families of "Palestinian" homicide bombers. Again, there's a huge difference in having terrorists in a country and that country actively harboring -- and training, and financing, and supporting -- terrorism.

[gabrielzero]

Alternately, even if he felt the rebellion had gone too far, he could also have felt that it was too strong for him to stop it (short of joining the British). In this case, his actions come down to a basic cost / benefit analysis: The situation the country is left in if the rebellion loses, and the situation the country is left in if the rebellion succeeds. I'm guessing he eventually decided the country would be better off if the Brits lost, since he ended up fighting against them.

Sad, but true that decisions in life are often not between right and wrong or good and evil, but between bad situations and worse situations.

And this is where things get tricky. The problem with patriotism in cases of rebellion, is that the patriots to one side are frequently the rebels to the other. Were Lee to stand by his beliefs and fight for what be believed the United States should stand for as a country, he would have been a patriot to the North and a rebel to the South. Fighting instead for his homeland, he was a patriot to the South and a rebel to the North.

Patriotism can be a very subjective thing, varying greatly with which side you're on. This was my original point.

Oh, of course it's inevitable that the United States will, actually, fall. King and commoner, mountain and valley, from the largest nation to the lowliest - time eventually comes for us all. I'm just curious as to how it will happen.

[Lazer]

In my opinion there are only to powers that could in theory could rival the US. China, which has remained secretive (and communist) well beyond any other superpower, could be a problem. In a direct war they'd be annihilated, but through slowly weaking the US econimically and through secretly supporting other nations in proxy wars, I believe that China could in fact gain some political influence over the US. A long shot but who knows.

Most might laugh at what I believe is the real threat to the US, but I feel the European Union is the true threat to US global dominance. As time goes on the ties between central, western and some eastern European countries grows. If this does not change than soon the countries of europe will become like the states of America. If this happens than the US will most definitly be replaced as the world superpower. The're already more powerful, they just have no strong unified voice.

In closeing I dont think the US is in ANY danger of being invaded or destroyed. I dont believe thats what the're fighting for. The're fighting to retain the super power status they gained merely by coming out of world war 2 untouched. They have no natural resources and a highly uneducated working class. Without explioting other nations with their current power they cannot hope to retain that power later. In short, without mid-east oil and ther market domination they will fade away.... albiet slowly.

[hellbred]

Originally Posted by Lazer

In my opinion there are only to powers that could in theory could rival the US. China

I feel this is at the least a issue worth keeping an eye on. However, don't be fooled -- The U.S. has been watching China for a long time, along with other Asian countries. Why I don't think China will provoke a global altercation due to our countries needing each other in trade and economic issues, I do feel China has the means to criple the U.S. via nuclear weapons.

The U.S. would never become like Iraq in the sense of "falling". Basically because the American population, much less the military would not allow for an invasion of our country.

The best known way the United States would be destroyed is via a combined military nuclear power, "ganging" up on us for the lack of better words -- or as Sasquatch mentioned, the country will destroy itself from within via domestic issues.

While many, if not most countries have a hatred for the United States, if the United States fell and ceased to exist, the rest of the world would be in trouble themselves as foreign governments, be it ally or enemy, rely on the United States to an extent.

Originally Posted by gabrielzero

...


*cough*


Alright now that I've gotten your attention, I suppose a better topic for this might be 'The reason the USA will not fall'.

We question. We doubt everything. We doubt the intelligence of our president, we doubt his competence, we doubt if the government as a whole is telling us the truth. Our motives for war, our actions in the war, our treatment of POWs, everything. We always look for the worst possible thing that's happening, then wave it up high for the entire world to see. It is through this process that we have aquired a horrendous reputation with the rest of the world. Ironically, it's alwo what makes us a wonderful nation.

You see, when you aim that much scrutiny at any practice that even might be unscrupulous, it's impossible for anyone to actually get away with anything. By looking at all of our horrible parts we learn our own moral weaknesses, and we eliminate them. We seek out and destroy all of the most dangerous parts of our society as quickly as we can, ensuring that it stays as healthy and as just as possible.

It's gotten to the point where even the best of people can barely stand the onslaught. I hate President Bush. I can honestly say that I think he does what he does with the best intentions, but that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with them. I don't doubt for a moment that he is at least moderately intelligent, with a sensible mind and a honest personality. But at the same time, I think there are much more qualified individuals who could have his position (note: Kerry is not one of them. I would hesitate to classify any politician as a competent leader.) And here's the best part:

All of this doubt, all of these questions I ask, all of it is the best thing I can do to help the country. Unpatriotic my ass. Who the **** defines 'Patriotism' anyway? George Washington was a true patriot - but not only did he support rebellion, he actually led an army against the old government! This was an extreme example, but the point is there. A patriot is not someone who blindly follows their government, but someone who seeks to improve it, even through force if the situation is dire enough.

So the next time you see a protest or hear someone insult our leader, smile. Smile knowing that it is these people that keep our government clean and honest. They are the ones who makes sure our country stays the best that it can be by accepting nothing less.

the problem with the statement of people who insult our political leaders are good, is that the majority of the people who insult them don't even vote and aren't educated on the topic. they speak from ignorance. now don't get me wrong, I don't think the government is always right, in fact there are a lot of things that should be changed, but I don't aggree with insulting anyone unless you have logic and reason to back up your claims. once you vote or you actually pay attention to this country's politics, then you can have an opinion, but if you don't vote or pay attention, then shut the hell up (not you personally, just people in general) I can't stand when I see this people on the news saying, our government is bad blah blah blah, and they didnt even vote. if this country fails, it will be because we have allowed ourselves to become fat, stupid, and weak. look at the auto industry! foreigners are beating us at our own games, yah, their cars may be better, ok. but then raise the tax on foreign cars and parts being shipped into america, and put the extra money in the unemployement funds for the thousands of americans that lost their jobs in the auto industry. if we are falling apart, its because we are losing sight of the ideals that we had when we founded this country. we are killing ourselves.

[Govinda]

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

By the way, don't use the swiftness and efficiency of an invasion as evidence for a weak Iraq, but moreso a strong Coalition.If we decided Mexico should be part of America and invaded it, and the UN came in and beat us back, then yes, that would be understandable. .

Two quick things here, personal gripes.

What swiftness? Efficiency?! The war is not over! People, your soldiers and mine, die in that country every day! Yes, they got there quickly, but they did it in a ramshackle manner that has rendered the country of Iraq unstable and on the brink of civil war!

And, also, the UN did beat you back when you decided to attack Iraq. The war is illegal; Pre-emptive War is a war crime! I know the UK is a much to blame, don't get me wrong, but our Prime Minister is a sheep; Bush most definetly led that illegal and oil-seeking war.

Lazer...a threat to US global dominance? You make it sound as if your country wants that. A fair and equal world not sound safe anough for you, no? I truly hope the UN grows stronger. It does, every day. Well, some days, it's difficult with Chirac around.

The US will fall, through greed, ignorance and plain stupidity. My country may well too, and that saddens me; a lot of my peers view American ideals as things that are to be admired. The US frightens, and angers, me more than anything.

(And my boyfriend is American - I know that half of the population have brains.)

Goodnight.

all things must pass. every great empire has faltered. i can't foresee it, but i'm sure it will happen.

[Jin]

Actually, I am quite interested in such a thing. It would remind me of the fall of Rome, spitting the world into a sort of dark age. Not the best analogy perhaps, but you get my idea.

The problem with the United States' foreign policy in my opinion is their short sightedness(if that's a word). After all, who was supplying weapons to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war because Iran was more of a threat at the time?

The future will be interesting to say the least.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Shiva

What swiftness? Efficiency?! The war is not over! People, your soldiers and mine, die in that country every day! Yes, they got there quickly, but they did it in a ramshackle manner that has rendered the country of Iraq unstable and on the brink of civil war!

First off, less innocent people die every day in Iraq now -- as "unstable" as it is -- than an average day during Saddam's reign. Not only that, but the vast majority don't die from Coalition attacks, but from the terrorism and insurgency against the Coalition. We blitzed in, and in a relatively short time, took control of the entire country and captured Saddam. Coalition Forces were quick and precise in their attacks. And I really don't know why some people find it so hard to figure out that we can't topple a government, then abandon the country. We have to adjust these people to freedom and let them govern themselves -- they're not used to that. Until they can stand on their own two feet, we have to help them along.

And, also, the UN did beat you back when you decided to attack Iraq.

I don't remember fighting against UN forces. The UN is incompetent, and has been for quite a while, and we realized that the old saying fits perfectly -- "If you want it done right, do it yourself."

The war is illegal; Pre-emptive War is a war crime!

First off, look up "pre-emptive". If not for the pre-emptive strike, Saddam would have attacked the United States, or United States interests and allies. He was a continuous and growing threat, and he needed to be taken out. (Actually, he needed to be taken out ten years before, but Bush Sr. accomplished his mission and got out, and Clinton didn't have the balls to do anything with the military, other than half it, and the UN, again, is incompetent, even though Saddam was breaking dozens of UN sanctions.)

I know the UK is a much to blame, don't get me wrong, but our Prime Minister is a sheep; Bush most definetly led that illegal and oil-seeking war.

First off, the United States hasn't taken a drop of petroleum from Iraq. So the "war for oil" thing can be thrown out the window. But let's not forget France, Germany, and Russia, who were all involved in under-the-table deals involving the "Oil-for-Food" program, and who wanted to let Saddam continue his reign of rape, torture, murder, and seeking NBC weapons so that they could prosper from Saddam's Iraq. That is "blood for oil". But anyway ... Why is it that so many people accuse Bush of masterminding the largest coalition in history for an "illegal" and "badly-planned" invasion, then turn around and call Bush stupid?

Jin -- You're right. We supplied Iraq with weapons against Iran (and, if I remember correctly, also supplied Iran with some weapons) for two reasons -- one was business, and the other was that it kept both of them tied up. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" applied often during the Cold War, and the United States found herself aligning with countries and organizations that would not usually be considered anything close to allies.

Anyway. When the United States "falls", I don't think it'll be a sudden thing, but very gradual. We've already started. In a hundred years, I think kids will be taught in school that the "Founding Fathers" had some good ideas that worked for a little while, but they've since moved on to a "better" system.