They say the past should be left behind, but do we really do that, we need to understand the past in order to live in the futur, unless Americas power is not devided in equal parts among the rest of the world they will always try and dominate the world, The American Goverment is pathetic, they dont have any selfrespect and respect for their nation.. Everything they do is for their own benefit and taht will always stay that way... But it will not last long every dog has its day and America is over due... A great concurer shall come and cripple the goverment...
America is based on lies, Pearl Habour, the moon landing, AIDS, Iraq, The world wars. all lies covered up by the goverment in order to achieve the world power, But how long can a lie last...
I wish those americans that conspire the world a slow and painfull death... (Not the Inoncent Americans)
with the exception of
> America is based on lies, Pearl Habour, the moon landing, AIDS, Iraq, The world wars. all lies covered up by the goverment in order to achieve the world power,
i wholly agree with you.
let us hope that the fall of the american empire and the rise of a new empire occurs with as little bloodshed as possible, and that the next great power has more respect for human dignity than the united states.
Lol faggots that take Pax Americana for granted and all the great things it's brought us in the last 60 years.
You better hope this American empire lasts, and is strong for the years ahead. Diffusion of power is what leads to global conflicts and mass-suffering.
1/10
Doesn't matter, in 40 years China will have undoubtedly overtaken the American economy.
>>4
All this OMG CHINA HOLDS OUR DEBTS is not based on fact, Japan holds more of America's foreign debt than China and the majority of US debt is held privately, not by foreign states. The truth is the US holds China's balls in a vice grip, either China becomes a neo-liberal playground or they can return to living in poverty under a maoist regime, there is nothing they can do. We've won.
>>1
What is your first language?
Que es su lingua primera?
Omae wa nan no bokokugo?
>>5
I agree partially. But I do not think the US has China's balls. It is definitely the other way around. The Chinese will overtake the US economy and likely be the dominate force in the 21st and likely 22nd centuries. Hell the white man might even die off as a result.
Imagine if the Chinese and Japanese got together like they are trying to do now? Both can piss on the US and they know it. The Japanese have just about had enough of the US and China is following suit.
>>7
If the US declared a trade embargo against China tomorrow, in six months the Chinese government would collapse and it'd be back to warlords, bandit armies, and anarchy, like the 1920s all over again, even without a naval blockade of their port cities, which they are powerless to prevent. Without the inflow of American hard currency China's economy withers on the vine and their society collapses.
Also, you have overlooked the fact that the Japanese and Chinese do not especially like one another.
The relationship is not one-way.
In theory the US could declare a full trade embargo. In reality that'll never happen. Guess why?
>>9
Because it would cut into the profits of large multinationals that are dependent upon Chinese political prisoner slave labor to produce the cheap and shoddy consumer goods that they import into the US.
The US could survive without inexpensive plastic childrens' toys. China could not survive without US hard currency.
Since it's not going to happen any time soon, the distinction -- whether true or not -- is pointless; believe whatever makes you feel happiest.
>>11
...so, you're not going to answer that rhetorical question you just raised?
I think you did a okay job with the first paragraph in >>10.
Be happy.
...no, then?
No. What are you after anyway?
I'm thinking you've misunderstood my argument. Tell me what you think I'm arguing.
I dunno about you, but I'd be pretty confused if I answered a question, get told that it doesn't matter, and then had that person agree with me in the next post.
But that would cut both ways.
America would be literally starving, and so would the rest of the first world, as the post-industrial world society as we know it collapses.
>>16
I guess I wasn't clear:
> In theory the US could declare a full trade embargo. In reality that'll never happen.
Therefore
> Since it's not going to happen any time soon, the distinction -- whether true or not -- is pointless
I think the first statement is a given. Everyone likes paying less; Walmart is an amazingly profitable and popular company because of this. China has both the industrial infrastructure and population to manufacture items cheaper than almost anywhere else. And China is happy to take anyone's money. Long live capitalism, comrade.
So we come to the second statement. I'm arguing that claiming country X will fare better than country Y is pointless patriotic wankery since I don't see it happening within the next decade.
And within the next decade things may change dramatically. The US dollar is increasingly based on wishful thinking. Meanwhile China is turning into a semi-wealthy polluted dump since the rest of the world is (foolishly) outsourcing their manufacturing capabilities.
> In reality that'll never happen. Guess why?
You asked "Guess why?" Then we had >>10 where someone answered the question "Guess why?", which brought us to >>11 where you blew Citizen off. In >>12 Citizen appears to be requesting input on why you raised the question in the first place, and then your own input on the "why?" part of it.
>>10 seems to be correct in his assertion that the Unites States of America would fare better. There are plenty of other shitty third world countries that would happily perform all of our trinket manufacturing, and the United States does have an awfully long strip of disused factories called the rust belt. If China can't get our capital, though, then their capacity to invest in development diminishes greatly.
"Guess why" was a rhetorical question since the answer is obvious. But I've made my position clear in >>18. If you want to debate that, feel free.