[Trenacker]

$1:

Because maybe military power is not an absolute, that you will win a war. Does not matter how many toys you have our how advance your technology is.

I never said that it was.

$1:

Something "Americans" have just not figured out quite yet.

Most Americans are well-aware that victory in Iraq and Afghanistan will require the use of tools other than military force. It has already been pointed out that the United States possesses more than enough firepower to obliterate enemy population centers. Only a distinct minority of Americans -- none of them lawmakers -- call for that kind of approach.

$1:

Diplomacy and winning the hearts of the people, sometimes works more effectively than cowboy tactics.

Yes, they do. Unfortunately, they are also prohibitively expensive. Neither party has, or could generate, the political mandate needed to spend the kinds of resources it would take to transform political and civic culture in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What we've got now is essentially a holding action -- trying to make the best of an awful situation, knowing full well that we're unlikely to succeed in the long term, but realizing that the political will to "do this thing right" just isn't there.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

tritium tritium:

Clogeroo Clogeroo:

Yes they are the most powerful country.

So if you have a nuke and I have a nuke, but I also have a few guns, I must be more powerful than you. Right?

Not to mention the most powerful country has been at war in Iraq since 2003 (4 years), and have lost 3022 U.S. Military Personnel and are still bogged down??

So Iraq must be pretty powerful too.

Different kind of war going on there. Look at Vietnam, the US was heavily involved for at least 10 years and involved militarily for almost 20.
But here's the thing. Against the low tech VC, they had it pretty tough, BUT in large formation or set piece battles with the NVA, the US NEVER lost a battle.
With the forces in Iraq, it's a similar problem. In the 2 major large scale combat operations against Iraqi Republican forces, the American forces fared quite well. It was also a lot easier to tell who the bad guys were(despite blue on blue incidents) so the CAS was far more effective. Now, they're back to not always knowing who the enemy combatants are, similar to the problem with the VC.
And sure, they could liberate Iraq the same way we liberated the Germans from nazism, but I'm pretty sure there would be global condemnation about B-52s carpet bombing Iraq's cities, towns and other suspected or genuine strongpoints.
And finally, unlike the "good ol' days", these day capturing a nation's capitol doesn't necessarily translate into capitulation.
It might be different if the forces the US are still fighting in Iraq weren't from OUTSIDE the country. It's not principally Iraqi's fighting them(although I'm sure they've worn out their welcome by now), but groups from outside of Iraq, that ironically, didn't have access to Iraq until the US removed Saddam. Kind'a hard to beat an enemy when you can't even go into their country(ies) and have at 'em. That is something the US doesn't have the ability to do conventionally and most likely, the will to do it either. Not that I blame 'em. No sense in irritating an already infected hemmorhoid.
The military is only a tool. And like any tool, it's only as effective as the dipshit that uses it.
And the dipshit(s) responsible for Iraq are the problem. Bush and his cronies completely mis-read the entire Mid-East situation and Saddam's role in it. His only exit stategy consisted of, "The Iraqi's will be so happy we got rid of Saddam, that all we have to do is help 'em rebuild and then leave."
I bet if you asked Bush for a screwdriver, he'd hand you a drink.

[Brent Bolivar]

Sure we say it to make make them happy . But your economy is down. The puplic will start rioting and you will have almost the same sitiation in libea . Watch out amarica . We got things to . Thing you dont know about.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

Watch out amarica . We got things to . Thing you dont know about.

You know, a trip to the clinic should be able to clear that up, and by law you're supposed to inform your partner about STDs. How about you introduce yourself to the forum first...then, you can talk out of your ass.

[Hyack]

I am shocked about the poor quality of n00bs who have been showing up lately, doesn't this usually happen at the start of summer vacation or other school breaks? At least this one somewhat uses punctuation and capital letters, otherwise....same old same old.....amarica??

[SprCForr]

This thread and the unDead thread: Still reeling them in slowly...

[ShepherdsDog]

Hyack Hyack:

I am shocked about the poor quality of n00bs who have been showing up lately, doesn't this usually happen at the start of summer vacation or other school breaks? At least this one somewhat uses punctuation and capital letters, otherwise....same old same old.....amarica??

libea??..when he was born did pass through his mother's Lybia

[Psudo]

tritium tritium:

[video] BTW, I love this video.

The measures of a nation's global stature as portrayed by that video are (in order of appearance): 1) skyscrapers, 2) population, 3) most internet users, 4) most network ready, 5) wealthiest nation, 6) quality of life, 7) happiness, and 8) military strength.

1) The USA is home to 30 of the top 100 tallest buildings in the world, which is more than every other nation except China and is also greater than China if Hong Kong is considered separate (which it arguably is). The USA would have more towers on the top 100 list than China including Hong Kong if the WTC towers had not been demolished by a terrorist attack, and the two nations will be tied once the One World Trade Center is completed in 2013. The UAE and is the only other nation that is even close. The rest of the globe combined (that is, everyone but the USA, China, Hong Kong, and the UAE) also has fewer top 100 buildings than the USA. Also, the USA is home to 16 of the 17 oldest buildings on that list, is the only nation to have housed the world's tallest skyscraper between 1890 and 1998 (108 years!), and is the only nation to ever house all five of the top five at any given moment. The fact that we lost interest in this game and left it to developing nations to play is hardly an indication of a loss of power. At least the video acknowledges that.

In order of tallest tower in the country, the top 10 skyscraper nations are the UAE, Taiwan, China, Malaysia, USA, Hong Kong (if separate from China), N. Korea, Australia, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, and (only if Hong Kong is combined with China) Qatar.

2) The video correctly ranks China at #1 in population, followed by India, then the USA. Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Russia, and Japan round out the top 10. #3 out of more than 200 nations is pretty high up there. Also, the high ranking in this stat puts these top nations at a disadvantage in any comparison of per capita or logistical figures.

3) For most internet users, we are second behind China. China has four times the population and twice the internet users. India has three times as many people as the USA but ranks 3rd in internet users. I guess per capita doesn't matter to the video's creators. Japan, Brazil, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom, France, and Nigeria round out the top 10.

4) Oh, wait, now you bring up network connectivity per capita. Those who beat us in pure numbers lose in a per capita comparison, and those who beat us per capita lose in pure numbers. The video depicts us as losers in both respects, but logically ya can't have it both ways. Oh, well. The video states that Denmark, Sweden, and Switzerland outrank the USA in this measure, but the latest figures do not agree. The USA has surpassed Denmark, but Singapore and Finland have surpassed the United States. The top 10 is, in order, Sweden, Singapore, Finland, Switzerland, the USA, Taiwan, Denmark, Canada, Norway, and S. Korea. Don't be confused by the source saying "Taiwan, China." That is a concession that international organizations give to China, pretending that Taiwan is part of China as a condition of Chinese involvement. China is 36th place.

5) The video measures wealth as GDP per capita -- a measure of the wealth of citizens, not of the nation as a whole. The USA has the largest GDP of any nation, but apparently that wasn't a figure that was as critical of the USA as the video wanted, so they went with per capita -- which, as mentioned earlier, is a figure biased against nations with large populations. The top 10 wealthiest nations are (in order) United States, China, Japan, India, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, Brazil, France, and Italy.

The USA comes in 11th in GDP per capita, behind Qatar, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Bermuda, Singapore, Jersey, Norway, Brunei, United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait -- not one of which has a population comparable to New York City, let alone ranking among the most populous or (with the exception of Norway) most powerful nations. Switzerland, which the video calls "uberwealthy", is 17th place. Should I concede to the video and include the USA in the top 10, even though their figures are outdated?

6) The Human Development Index cited by the video is not only adjusted by population (and, thus, biased against nations with large populations), but also includes measures of equality of outcome (and, thus, is biased in favor of socialism and social programs). This makes it doubly-biased against the United States. Nonetheless, the USA is in 10th place in the world, behind (in rank order): #1 Norway, #2 Iceland, #3 Australia, the Canada-Luxembourg-Sweden tie, #7 Switzerland, #8 Ireland, and #9 Belgium. Notice that none of these are on the list of 10 most populous nations except the USA.

7) I wonder what source the video used for the happiness index. My search turned up a source that puts the USA at 14th place, not 23rd as the video claims. My source says 2010; I suspect they were using numbers from a previous year, but I cannot be sure. The top ten are: #1 Denmark, #2 Finland, #3 Norway, a #4/#5 tie between Sweden and the Netherlands, another tie between Costa Rica and New Zealand, and a four-way tie between Canada, Israel, Australia, and Switzerland.

8) The video concedes the USA has the most powerful military and only calls into question whether that's a commendable thing. But who else is comparable? The top 10 nations with the most military power are: The USA (of course), Russia, China, India, The UK, Turkey, S. Korea, France, Japan, and Israel.

-- Other Factors --
The USA also ranks in the top 10 for most land area, most available resources, and most patriotic citizenry. The United States is given no credit by the video for being so frequently the first nation to delve into new sciences and technologies, such as being a world leader in medical research or being the only nation whose citizens have walked on the moon. Our providing innovation to the world is overlooked because we are sacrificing our happiness to provide it? That seems ridiculous.

-- Conclusion --
Notwithstanding the video's cherry-picking of facts against the possibility of US power, out of the 8 fields put forward by the video, the USA is the only nation to get top 10 in 6 different categories (not counting the video's mistaken top 10 claim on GDP per capita). No other nation is on any 5 of those top 10 lists, and only two other nations -- China and Norway -- are in 4 of the rankings.

If the video wasn't specifically cherry-picking figures to make the USA look weak, the power gap between it and the rest of the world would have been even more apparent.