What Would the World Be Like Without America? (1 Viewer)

[FreeThinker]

I want to know what people think: what would happen if there was no United States as we know it? What if America spent no money on the military and didn't have any influence on foreign affairs?

You think it would be more peaceful?

Less peaceful?

Why?

 

[Kandahar]

Do you mean, like, if America disappeared today? Or if it had never existed at all?

Either way, the overall picture is pretty bleak IMO. It's quite possible that none of the European countries would have had the guts to start democratic revolutions, without the leadership of the United States (or if they did it would probably be limited to the Anglosphere). Hitler and Stalin probably would've divided Europe between them. There would have been very little scientific progress in anything other than warfare this past century. Without America, most of the world would probably still be wallowing in socialism and autarky today. Very little progress in terms of human rights. And there wouldn't be anything resembling an "international community;" there would just be a bunch of bloodthirsty empires waging constant war against each other.

 

[FreeThinker]

Now that I've made a neutral first post, here goes my opinion:

America is the only thing keeping countries like China from invading Taiwan (and a few other neighbors).

We are the only thing that stops all of the middle east from destroying Israel.

We are the only thing that keeps countries like Venezuela or Cuba from trying to unify the south american continent.

We are the only thing keeping South Korea free.

We are the only thing keeping dictatorships isolated and unable to gain any real military power.

Anytime any country anywhere in the world thinks about destroying their neighbor, the question "but what about America" comes up.

It is American military power alone that keeps the world from eating itself alive, and it is a burden we carry with pride.

 

[jfuh]

Now that I've made a neutral first post, here goes my opinion:

America is the only thing keeping countries like China from invading Taiwan (and a few other neighbors).

We are also the ones whom facilitated the communists to take over China by standing idly by.

We are the only thing that stops all of the middle east from destroying Israel.

No argument here. That we are. The British are the ones that created the problem in the first place.

We are the only thing that keeps countries like Venezuela or Cuba from trying to unify the south american continent.

I honestly doubt that would ever have happened.

We are the only thing keeping South Korea free.

South Korea themselves?

We are the only thing keeping dictatorships isolated and unable to gain any real military power.

We installed a few ourselves. We also keep the powers in Saudi Arabia be.

Anytime any country anywhere in the world thinks about destroying their neighbor, the question "but what about America" comes up.

This wasn't always true. There was a time where it was "What about GB?" And then there was the time when "What about the USA and USSR?" It goes with being the super power.

It is American military power alone that keeps the world from eating itself alive, and it is a burden we carry with pride.

I don't think this is an accurate representation of the reality we live in. It's far far more complex than that. Military power is one thing, but it's not the reason. Most countries are not tearing each other apart from our military interventions because we are there for our own national interests. This is exactly why we are not in Sudan and why we did not intervene with rawanda - no national interest at stake. We do not go, hmmm where is there a comflict? lets go settle things down.
instead we say "instability in the ME threatens our energy interests in that region and destablizes our reliant economy which in turn threatens are credit rating causing a down fall or freeze of our government, we need to take action to protect our national intersts by way of stablizing said region."

 

[FreeThinker]

We are also the ones whom facilitated the communists to take over China by standing idly by.

The Chinese Soviet Republic was founded in November 1931 in Jiangxi Province. In 1934 Mao and his forces were driven out, and they went northward in what is known as the Long March. By 1935, however, the Communists and Nationalists forged a united front against the Japanese. Rivalry persisted, but the front held until 1945. The revolution that then began ended in 1949 with the Communists victorious.

http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/chinhist.html

If you think America had the resources to prevent a communist takeover of China right after beating the Nazis and imperial Japan you have another thing coming.

No argument here. That we are. The British are the ones that created the problem in the first place.

After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947).

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

You mean the UN?

I honestly doubt that would ever have happened.

Yeah. Chavez and Castro are really nice people at heart. :roll:

South Korea themselves?

Are you making the statement that South Korea is or was capable of defeating North Korea's army? Please say yes: that's a topic I'd love to discuss.

This wasn't always true. There was a time where it was "What about GB?" And then there was the time when "What about the USA and USSR?" It goes with being the super power.

Right. We are a super power, and we are the first thing people think about when considering destroying their neighbors.

I don't think this is an accurate representation of the reality we live in. It's far far more complex than that. Military power is one thing, but it's not the reason. Most countries are not tearing each other apart from our military interventions because we are there for our own national interests. This is exactly why we are not in Sudan and why we did not intervene with rawanda - no national interest at stake. We do not go, hmmm where is there a comflict? lets go settle things down.
instead we say "instability in the ME threatens our energy interests in that region and destablizes our reliant economy which in turn threatens are credit rating causing a down fall or freeze of our government, we need to take action to protect our national intersts by way of stablizing said region."

Well first I'd like to say this: we live in a world where every country's economic stability is effected by their trading partners. The middle east and south america have oil, asia has labor, africa has minerals, europe has skilled labor, america has technology, russia has russians, etc.

Any of those international resources failing means the cost of that good or service goes up domestically in any nation that consumes that item.

America isn't the only country that burns petroleum. A novel concept is that French people pay more for gasoline when the price spikes just like Americans do. Wow!

And to say America doesn't intervene in a crisis when we have nothing to gain is not correct.

We had nothing to gain in Haiti when it fell apart. Why did we send two aircraft carriers and 5000 marines?

Bosnia? What were we interested in there?

Grenada? .... They have oil? Cheap labor? No? Why were we there?

How about Somalia? It is true Clinton is an idiot and decided to leave when things there got hard, but we still tried. I blame that failure on Democrats (nice job in Vietnam by the way).

My point is world stability is in the best interests of everyone, not just America.

 

[The Mark]

Personally, I believe that the world would be much worse off without the United States of America.

 

[FreeThinker]

Personally, I believe that the world would be much worse off without the United States of America.

Mark you were supposed to say you hate america and make a series of illogical arguments for me to categorically disprove.

This is not helping my campaign to win the internet.

Where the hell did dragonslayer go? I fully expected a Bush hating rant out of that guy.

 

[Goobieman]

Now that I've made a neutral first post, here goes my opinion:

America is the only thing keeping countries like China from invading Taiwan (and a few other neighbors).

We are the only thing that stops all of the middle east from destroying Israel.

We are the only thing that keeps countries like Venezuela or Cuba from trying to unify the south american continent.

We are the only thing keeping South Korea free.

We are the only thing keeping dictatorships isolated and unable to gain any real military power.

Anytime any country anywhere in the world thinks about destroying their neighbor, the question "but what about America" comes up.

It is American military power alone that keeps the world from eating itself alive, and it is a burden we carry with pride.

The US is the last, best hope for liberty and freedom in the world, as no one elese has the will or the resources to ensure that it survives.

If the US gives up on this, the world will descend into a new dark age.

 

[jfuh]

The Chinese Soviet Republic was founded in November 1931 in Jiangxi Province. In 1934 Mao and his forces were driven out, and they went northward in what is known as the Long March. By 1935, however, the Communists and Nationalists forged a united front against the Japanese. Rivalry persisted, but the front held until 1945. The revolution that then began ended in 1949 with the Communists victorious.

http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/chinhist.html

If you think America had the resources to prevent a communist takeover of China right after beating the Nazis and imperial Japan you have another thing coming.

I do? And that being?
Before you jump to unabased conclusions here's how the US gave up on the nationalist Chinese government.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0895b.asp
Yalta conference is quite symbolic of US betrayal of China. So if contrastingly, you have another thing coming.

After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947).

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

You mean the UN?

Firstly if you've noticed I'm not arguing that the US had much of anything to do with the Israeli Palestine clash, contrastingly the British did, and I mean that by this.
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/history/transcripts/p-two.10-01-02.mandate.html
So not the UN

Yeah. Chavez and Castro are really nice people at heart.

Sarcasm does not help in your debate. No I never said either of them were nice ppl. What I've said is neither have the ability to conquer all of South America. Chavez did not come onto the scene until just this century - thus my doubt of it ever happening.

Are you making the statement that South Korea is or was capable of defeating North Korea's army? Please say yes: that's a topic I'd love to discuss.

Was no, is yes.

Right. We are a super power, and we are the first thing people think about when considering destroying their neighbors.

Tell that to Sudan. Point of the matter is we are not as relevent to all instances as you have made us out to be.

Well first I'd like to say this: we live in a world where every country's economic stability is effected by their trading partners. The middle east and south america have oil, asia has labor, africa has minerals, europe has skilled labor, america has technology, russia has russians, etc.

Any of those international resources failing means the cost of that good or service goes up domestically in any nation that consumes that item.

America isn't the only country that burns petroleum. A novel concept is that French people pay more for gasoline when the price spikes just like Americans do.

Again, I'm trying to engage in an actual debate here, so I would appreciate if you did not resort to the sarcastic mannerisms of others on this site to drive your point. But Russia has russians - funny.
Oil is a global commodity so of course thier price spikes often when ours do, though not all the time. However that also has to do with the fact that our oil companies control much of the oil rights in the world - in fact 1/4 of it. French also pay more - far more, than we do because of thier own taxations on gasoline.
As for other commodities, no inapplicable to all other commodities. The populice in China has a far lower GDP than we do here in the States, but enjoy a relatively similar purchasing power as we do here in the states - and per capita are mostly debt free. Hopefully you see where I'm going with that.
The relevance being counter to the argument of everything being on the global market.

And to say America doesn't intervene in a crisis when we have nothing to gain is not correct.

We had nothing to gain in Haiti when it fell apart. Why did we send two aircraft carriers and 5000 marines?

Where is Haiti? Too close for comfort.
The proximity of Haiti to our nation is within our national interest for it to be "stable". Even today Haiti is still a mess, but it's stable in terms of effect on surrounding waters. That also inclusive of Cuba - Castro is irrelevent.

Bosnia? What were we interested in there?

That is a good question to which I must claim ignorance to and will need to do more research upon.

Grenada? .... They have oil? Cheap labor? No? Why were we there?

Again, Too close a proximity - as well as more importantly - given that this is still cold war era - NSC-68. A small proving ground to the Soviets of our military might.

How about Somalia? It is true Clinton is an idiot and decided to leave when things there got hard, but we still tried. I blame that failure on Democrats (nice job in Vietnam by the way).

Yes it is true, Clinton was a moron (not idiot) - and he bugged out discrediting us severely, however, bugging out so quickly also shows more of the irrelevance of Somalia to our national interests. Mind you of what was going on in Somalia? Yep, civil war - we were there on humanitarian mission not to be involved in thier civil war. In other words we were there to police not to fight a war, thus still abiding by my premise.
Also it is noteworthy that Republicans as well as dems were calling for a withdraw.

My point is world stability is in the best interests of everyone, not just America.

It is in the best interest of everyone. But we are one of the only nations whom retain the means to do something about global stability. We don't assert ourselves into every international crisis unless it effects our national interests directly, which is why so many places in the world why we do not even bother.

Then again though you must ask, what creates stability? Military might, temporarily yes, for the long term it is wealth. Thus the Marshall plan for Europe (aka European Recovery Program) after WWII - and it worked beautifully only with the side effect of Europe being a competitor with the US now - not in the interest of big business. Probably why there is not such a plan in Iraq today.

Terrorists are criminals and must be tried as such. But dealing with the spread of terrorism in the Middle East is more complex — as it thrives on ignorance, hate ideologies and political failures of modern states.

Arabs are better educated in technical sciences, engineering and languages, than in contemporary political and social sciences. Political education in the Middle East is usually indoctrination. By contrast, Iraq’s recent electoral experience enlightened millions. It showed that education is to vote a government into power and then watch it grapple with the issues that confront people in their daily lives, and see whether it succeeds or fails, and listen to it explain its policies honestly and frankly. A free press leaves people able to discriminate between propaganda, rumours and lies and the unvarnished reporting of facts. - SOURCE

 

[dragonslayer]

I am only speaking of the current world political climate. With America in cahoots with corporate sponsor, We, America, seem to have unlimited aragance and care nothing for people. The Current administration seems to kill strictly for profit and power. Sure sounds like Hitler?

 

[stsburns]

I want to know what people think: what would happen if there was no United States as we know it? What if America spent no money on the military and didn't have any influence on foreign affairs?

You think it would be more peaceful?

Less peaceful?

Why?

F peace! To me, peace means one of us has to die? None of us want that now?

What would the world be like without America:
Africans: Would've been slaves, but not by Confederates.

Caucasians: Would've lived under ruthless kings in poverty, and many would die in disease outbreaks.

Indians (From India): Will still be making alot of wealth in oil, and would still be selling there 6 wives. :lol:

Natives of American: Would've either been chased out by the French, or by the Mexicans.

Iraqi's: Would still be under Saddam and the Baath Party. Syria would still be a close ally.

Iran: Will still hate Iraq. Will probably always have war with Iraq.

Jerusalem: Will always have war, no matter what.

I would like to go on...but I do have a life outside the forum. :mrgreen:

 

[dragonslayer]

Those who believe Navy's tag line, will not ever accept arguments against the tag line. It is an emotional issue rather than an intellectual issue.

I have written blurbs against the message of the tagline, and I certainly don't believe it.

The current mission to Iraq is the blatent missuse of our troops for immoral purposes. I have cousins nephew in Iraq, and I don't want to see them die for nothing. Dying for Bush is the same as Dying for nothing. Bush is not an American hero, like Kerry is. Kerry may not always show good manners, but he has the Congressional Medal Of Honor, while Bush had his Daddy rescue him from the military.
We all know now that the war has nothing to do with 911, self defense, or terrorism.

I am not talking of Afghanistan or Bosnia. I mean only the invasion and control of Iraq. The reasons given for the Iraq war are lies, and deceits. Who is making profit from this war? Answer that and one will know why the war goes on, and people get rich, as people die.

 

[jujuman13]

Quote
(Very little progress in terms of human rights. And there wouldn't be anything resembling an "international community;" there would just be a bunch of bloodthirsty empires waging constant war against each other.)

So in reality, pretty much as it is today?

 

[faithful_servant]

OK, so the picture I'm visualizing is that if you sail West from Europe the first land you hit is Japan kind of scenario.

1. The European's would only have had Africa to colonize and would have used it as the place where the "huddled masses" would have emigrated to. Most of this emigration would have been to central and southern Africa. The resulting conflicts between the emigrants and the African tribes would have resulted in an extended conflict that eventually ended with the Africans being either killed or enslaved (too much manufacturing power behind the Europeans).

2. With fewer people wanting to emigrate to Africa (face it, America was a lot more attractive than Africa), there would have been a lot more malcontents left behind in countries that were rapidly getting over-populated. I think that we would have seen a lot more civil wars/revolutions in Europe.

3. Eventually population pressures would have forced the Afro-Europeans and the Asians (including Russia) into conflict, with the ME at the crux of the whole deal. The winner would probably have been the Asians (better access to the needed resources and a bigger workforce), leading to a wholesale destruction of the European nations (these are the same people who spawned Temujin and you can bet that they would be taking over as much land as they could). We'd probably have a world dominated by the Northern peoples of Russia, most of S. Asia and Africa controlled by the Chinese (the Russians got Europe, the Chinese got Africa). The ME oil fields would have been controlled by a coalition gov't managed by the two powers.

 

[Goobieman]

OK, so the picture I'm visualizing is that if you sail West from Europe the first land you hit is Japan kind of scenario.

Excellent way to look at it.
But remember that this changes history after 1492, but not before.

1. The European's would only have had Africa to colonize and would have used it as the place where the "huddled masses" would have emigrated to. Most of this emigration would have been to central and southern Africa. The resulting conflicts between the emigrants and the African tribes would have resulted in an extended conflict that eventually ended with the Africans being either killed or enslaved (too much manufacturing power behind the Europeans).

Agree.

2. With fewer people wanting to emigrate to Africa (face it, America was a lot more attractive than Africa), there would have been a lot more malcontents left behind in countries that were rapidly getting over-populated. I think that we would have seen a lot more civil wars/revolutions in Europe.

Maybe. Africa is a big place and is abundant in resources.
Dont forget Australia, et al.

3. Eventually population pressures would have forced the Afro-Europeans and the Asians (including Russia) into conflict, with the ME at the crux of the whole deal. The winner would probably have been the Asians (better access to the needed resources and a bigger workforce), leading to a wholesale destruction of the European nations

You're forgetting the technological and industrial advantages of the Europeans that you spoke of before. Russia and China didnt become industrial nations until the 20th century, and there's not a lot in the "No America" scenario to make me think that will change.

 

[liberateamerica]

Half the world would be speaking Japanese and under an imperial government, the other half would be speaking German and Russian. We wouldn't have computers, the Internet, TVs, radios, etc. We would have nuclear bombs, but they would be German nukes. There would have been nominal opposition against the Nazis in WW2, but Britain wouldn't have been able to hold out when all of Europe was occupied. Canada and Mexico would both be at least 2X bigger than they are now.

 

[Andy]

dragon,
Kerry didn't win the Medal of Honor. Get your facts straight. That's a pretty big oops...

i'm going to take a scenario in which the colonies never rebelled.

The way I see it, if we had stayed with the British then they, in turn, would have become even more powerful. The British could have used the US as a prime source of revenue, labor, material, and troops that, if properly managed, would have resulted in an even more powerful British empire that would have marshalled US resources to decisive victories in WW1 and WW2, likely taking even more colonies as a result. Ultimately, I believe we would see a massive British Empire spanning the seas. The other major European powers would have still held some import, as would Russia. China would probably become a British vassal of sorts, but Britain would rule the world.

 

[jujuman13]

Quote
(America is the only thing keeping countries like China from invading Taiwan (and a few other neighbors).

Without America, Japan would have completed it’s occupation of China and Taiwan.

Quote
(We are the only thing that stops all of the middle east from destroying Israel.)

Without America, Israel would not exist.
Without America, the ME would initially have continued to have been ruled by the UK & France, and after WWI, by Germany.

Quote
(We are the only thing that keeps countries like Venezuela or Cuba from trying to unify the south American continent.)

Without America, Cuba would have continued to have been ruled by Spain.

Quote
(We are the only thing keeping South Korea free.)

Without America, there would have been no such thing as 2 distinct nations on the Korean Peninsula, as Japan would have continued to occupy Korea as a whole.

Quote
(We are the only thing keeping dictatorships isolated and unable to gain any real military power.)

With and Without America, Dictatorships would continue.

Quote
(Anytime any country anywhere in the world thinks about destroying their neighbor, the question "but what about America" comes up.)

True.

(It is American military power alone that keeps the world from eating itself alive, and it is a burden we carry with pride.)

IMHO I believe the world is eating itself alive.


Now, let us come to some other truths, at least in my opinion.
1) There would have been no Adolph Hitler rising to power in Germany in the 1930s, why?
Well again IMHO Germany would have (W/O USA intervention) have won WWI, and thus the Treaty of Versailles would not have cast huge reparations for starting that WWI on the German nation, this means that Germany would not have suffered Hyper Inflation, nor Stagflation which caused so much pain and suffering on Germany that the masses literally cried out for relief and would have elected ANYONE who revitalized their spirit and gave them the Promise of wealth, stability, power.
Naturally this would also have meant that the Holocaust would NOT have taken place, as the idea of persecution of the Jews was initially Hitler’s idea.
Jews were, prior to Hitler, considered to be an asset to Germany.
Without American intervention in the WWI, Germany would have won, the ME would have been ruled by Germany (having defeated UK & France, we would not now be in this mess in Iraq, Iran, Iraq would be under German rule.

 

[jfuh]

Quote
(America is the only thing keeping countries like China from invading Taiwan (and a few other neighbors).

Without America, Japan would have completed it’s occupation of China and Taiwan.

Quote
(We are the only thing that stops all of the middle east from destroying Israel.)

Without America, Israel would not exist.
Without America, the ME would initially have continued to have been ruled by the UK & France, and after WWI, by Germany.

Quote
(We are the only thing that keeps countries like Venezuela or Cuba from trying to unify the south American continent.)

Without America, Cuba would have continued to have been ruled by Spain.

Quote
(We are the only thing keeping South Korea free.)

Without America, there would have been no such thing as 2 distinct nations on the Korean Peninsula, as Japan would have continued to occupy Korea as a whole.

Quote
(We are the only thing keeping dictatorships isolated and unable to gain any real military power.)

With and Without America, Dictatorships would continue.

Quote
(Anytime any country anywhere in the world thinks about destroying their neighbor, the question "but what about America" comes up.)

True.

(It is American military power alone that keeps the world from eating itself alive, and it is a burden we carry with pride.)

IMHO I believe the world is eating itself alive.


Now, let us come to some other truths, at least in my opinion.
1) There would have been no Adolph Hitler rising to power in Germany in the 1930s, why?
Well again IMHO Germany would have (W/O USA intervention) have won WWI, and thus the Treaty of Versailles would not have cast huge reparations for starting that WWI on the German nation, this means that Germany would not have suffered Hyper Inflation, nor Stagflation which caused so much pain and suffering on Germany that the masses literally cried out for relief and would have elected ANYONE who revitalized their spirit and gave them the Promise of wealth, stability, power.
Naturally this would also have meant that the Holocaust would NOT have taken place, as the idea of persecution of the Jews was initially Hitler’s idea.
Jews were, prior to Hitler, considered to be an asset to Germany.
Without American intervention in the WWI, Germany would have won, the ME would have been ruled by Germany (having defeated UK & France, we would not now be in this mess in Iraq, Iran, Iraq would be under German rule.

Good points - going even further back then I have intended.
However, that then brings further into question of these points.
W/o the US Germany would've won, to which case Japan would've also been the loser of the first world war. To which case then Japan would not have been able to step foot onto China mainland through the province of Shandong as it did after WWI. Japan would've only maintained the rail rights in Manchuria and the port rights of Port Aurthur after it won them from Russia.
Also the Boxer revolution may have never taken place in China do to the US's non-involvement and China may have had it's 5 major ports remain closed.
The stock market plunge aka great depression would've never happened to which Japan would most likely not have continued onto it's all out assault on China.
China would've never have become a democracy without the US because Sun Yat Sen would not have been able to flee to Honolulu..... ok you know what, forget it, just waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much.

 

[Kandahar]

So in reality, pretty much as it is today?

Umm no...There aren't ANY bloodthirsty empires waging constant war against each other today. The closest thing there is to one is Iran, which is really neither an empire nor waging constant war (at least not yet).

If the United States did not exist, there would still be a British Empire, a French Empire, a USSR, an Ottoman Empire, a Japanese Empire, and a Chinese Empire. They would all most likely hate each other, except for in periods of temporary alliances made in bad faith.

It is the United States that has created the international community. It is the United States that was primarily responsible for ending the age of empires. It is the United States that focused the world's attention on human rights issues. It is the United States that provided the world with an example of how democracy can work. It is the United States that is responsible - directly or indirectly - for nearly all of the non-warfare scientific progress of the last century.

Without the United States, the world would not be a very pretty place.

 

[jujuman13]

Quote
(Umm no...)

Ummm YES....
War is carried out by many methods, war is being waged as we speak.
War in ME.
War in Korea.
War in Afghanistan.
War in South America.
Not all these or any of the other numerous wars are necessarily being fought as killing fields, but do not labor under the impression that war has ceased.
When the last 2 humans are left standing, they will still war on each other, only when one falls, will the other be unable to wage war on his / her own kind, but then whoever is left standing will find something else to wage war on.
Man is the only animal that wages war constantly on his / her own kind.
Don't you find that a little sad?

 

[Kandahar]

Ummm YES....
War is carried out by many methods, war is being waged as we speak.
War in ME.
War in Korea.
War in Afghanistan.
War in South America.
Not all these or any of the other numerous wars are necessarily being fought as killing fields, but do not labor under the impression that war has ceased.
When the last 2 humans are left standing, they will still war on each other, only when one falls, will the other be unable to wage war on his / her own kind, but then whoever is left standing will find something else to wage war on.
Man is the only animal that wages war constantly on his / her own kind.
Don't you find that a little sad?

What does any of that have to do with America's role in the world? Are you suggesting that because war hasn't been entirely wiped out, America has made the world a worse place? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Kandahar]

Actually, this thread is very interesting. I've been meaning to write a short story for some time, and this seems like a good subject. It'll be the history of the last 500 years, ever since Christopher Columbus sailed west from Europe and hit Japan.

I'll post some of it (or a link to it) on this thread when I finish it. Maybe sometime next week.

 

[jfuh]

Umm no...There aren't ANY bloodthirsty empires waging constant war against each other today. The closest thing there is to one is Iran, which is really neither an empire nor waging constant war (at least not yet).

If the United States did not exist, there would still be a British Empire, a French Empire, a USSR, an Ottoman Empire, a Japanese Empire, and a Chinese Empire. They would all most likely hate each other, except for in periods of temporary alliances made in bad faith.

It is the United States that has created the international community. It is the United States that was primarily responsible for ending the age of empires. It is the United States that focused the world's attention on human rights issues. It is the United States that provided the world with an example of how democracy can work. It is the United States that is responsible - directly or indirectly - for nearly all of the non-warfare scientific progress of the last century.

Without the United States, the world would not be a very pretty place.

A japanese empire, it was actually a product of the US to begin with. The black fleet anchoring in Tokyo Harbor scaring the crap out of the local government into submission to open thier ports up to western trade. Thus the kick start of the Meiji Revolution. How's that for irony - the ppls we helped make turning around to then bite us in our a@@, oh wait that happened again with OBL and Saddam.

How the world would be is very difficult to say. If anything however one thing is certain. Our world would not be as advanced as it is today at this same point if the US had not existed. In other words we could at most hope for being some where in the mid to later part of the 19th century in terms of technology.

 

[jamesrage]

I want to know what people think: what would happen if there was no United States as we know it? What if America spent no money on the military and didn't have any influence on foreign affairs?

You think it would be more peaceful?

Less peaceful?

Why?

I think that without the United States the world would be less peaceful and more miserable.