End of the usa

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

I dont think it´s the "End of the usa"

Offtopic

Quote[/b] ]Sanctuary :hosting this event is expensive

Not really. They estimates the net loss to be around 1 million Kr. (witch is like 100 000$) And thats nothing for a big company. This is Because the ESC Pays the whole bill. ESC gets all their money from the participating countries. France among three other countries pay a extra fee to be guarantee to compete every year, regardless of their position last year.

[cam0flage 0]

I agree with Badgerboy (as usual), I have here in my hand a poem from 1240 AD, it's about a cuckoo, it's not very good and middle english is slightly silly but this dates to i think before America was even being properly colonised.

OT:

Haha, I know that poem. I felt I needed to paste a link to that poem, here.

[DarkLight 0]

No discussion about how the moderators work, you've been warned for that.

Are you joking now or are you really serious?

[Placebo 29]

Joking of course

[ralphwiggum 6]

let me try to stir this back on topic.

what could cause US's end?

First, we need to look at US and how it is composed. In a nutshell, US is not a typical nation. it's a big nation spanning 3 timezones and with various population density distribution around it. From deserts in the southern part to freezing climate up in northern part.

and there are diverse cultures in it. somone from suburb of a Southern state would have different culture than that of suburb in a western state city.

however, this does not imply that US is a heterogenious entity. There is the federal gov't which can impose a lot of sanctions(rules) over those lands that is universally accepted.

so, in other words, US is like a bunch of orchestra players who are different, but at the conducting of a maestro, it becomes an orchestra.

an orchestra can be good or bad depending upon how those in it act. if there is a discord between conductor and players, nothing good comes out.

taking a side step, we examine fall of Roman empire. It is generally accepted that reliance on foreign force(meaning foreigners in military) caused the fall. The foreigners in the military wanted to participate in politics/want power and threw over Roman empire.

Before someone goes off in anti-foreigner campaign, here is something to look at. AFAIR, the foreigners were not integrated into Roman Empire. they could work, but their participation in direction of the empire was blocked. so they work to defend something that they are not allowed to participate. it's a no brainer that this will cause anger.

In case of US, we do not have such problem. As examplified with current increase in minority congressman and senators, the chance for minorities to participate in decision process is open(just damn hard to get in ). so integration in to US society as whole is there, and for those who say immigrants are going ot topple the country, they are missing the point that they won't since failure of US gov't will mean failure for themselves(minorities).

Another case to look at is British Empire. They pretty much had the best system of colonization, and has suffered some setbacks due to it too. Comparing BE to US, there are some differences. AFAIR, BE had there own decision making entity(gov't) on each of the colonies that fell under her. In case of US, there is no or little of that, but rather, indirect influence structure. For example, Haiti. US did not set up a US gov't office fo ruling, but had another Haitian rule it. Same for Afghanistan and other places.

Such action is more likely to shield US better than having a direct in-your-face approach. Thus it is hard to blame US for actions in a nation.

[DarkLight 0]

let me try to stir this back on topic.

what could cause US's end?

First, we need to look at US and how it is composed. In a nutshell, US is not a typical nation. it's a big nation spanning 3 timezones and with various population density distribution around it. From deserts in the southern part to freezing climate up in northern part.

and there are diverse cultures in it. somone from suburb of a Southern state would have different culture than that of suburb in a western state city.

however, this does not imply that US is a heterogenious entity. There is the federal gov't which can impose a lot of sanctions(rules) over those lands that is universally accepted.

so, in other words, US is like a bunch of orchestra players who are different, but at the conducting of a maestro, it becomes an orchestra.

an orchestra can be good or bad depending upon how those in it act. if there is a discord between conductor and players, nothing good comes out.

taking a side step, we examine fall of Roman empire. It is generally accepted that reliance on foreign force(meaning foreigners in military) caused the fall. The foreigners in the military wanted to participate in politics/want power and threw over Roman empire.

Before someone goes off in anti-foreigner campaign, here is something to look at. AFAIR, the foreigners were not integrated into Roman Empire. they could work, but their participation in direction of the empire was blocked. so they work to defend something that they are not allowed to participate. it's a no brainer that this will cause anger.

In case of US, we do not have such problem. As examplified with current increase in minority congressman and senators, the chance for minorities to participate in decision process is open(just damn hard to get in ). so integration in to US society as whole is there, and for those who say immigrants are going ot topple the country, they are missing the point that they won't since failure of US gov't will mean failure for themselves(minorities).

Another case to look at is British Empire. They pretty much had the best system of colonization, and has suffered some setbacks due to it too. Comparing BE to US, there are some differences. AFAIR, BE had there own decision making entity(gov't) on each of the colonies that fell under her. In case of US, there is no or little of that, but rather, indirect influence structure. For example, Haiti. US did not set up a US gov't office fo ruling, but had another Haitian rule it. Same for Afghanistan and other places.

Such action is more likely to shield US better than having a direct in-your-face approach. Thus it is hard to blame US for actions in a nation.

But what happens if you destroy all the violins in an orchestra? It won't work anymore, it might be able to get along without them but it's power will have weakened and it'll collapse easier than ever before...

[Postduifje 0]

Every new empire lives in a new time era, has a different setup and has a different reason for falling appart. Just because the current world power shows little similarities with the previous ones, and with their reasons to fall appart, doesn't mean that this one won't. I'm sure there will be a totally original reason for the US to become less of what they are today, but I'm sure it will happen one day.

Every empire in history shows a life cycles. There are some various models, but a general pattern is obviously shown. One empire will easily donwgrade to a minimum, the other will just move down a place in line for the next, and some have totally vanished. The last example is not very obvious, unless you're thinking of nuclear war, alien invasion or a devistation virus.

Anyhow, there is a state of starting low; one of building up; a peak stage, where destruction seems mere fantasy; a stage of falling appart or breaking down; and last one of the tragic end.

(sorry for the spelling errors)

-Post

[DarkLight 0]

Every new empire lives in a new time era, has a different setup and has a different reason for falling appart. Just because the current world power shows little similarities with the previous ones, and with their reasons to fall appart, doesn't mean that this one won't. I'm sure there will be a totally original reason for the US to become less of what they are today, but I'm sure it will happen one day.

Every empire in history shows a life cycles. There are some various models, but a general pattern is obviously shown. One empire will easily donwgrade to a minimum, the other will just move down a place in line for the next, and some have totally vanished. The last example is not very obvious, unless you're thinking of nuclear war, alien invasion or a devistation virus.

Anyhow, there is a state of starting low; one of building up; a peak stage, where destruction seems mere fantasy; a stage of falling appart or breaking down; and last one of the tragic end.

(sorry for the spelling errors)

-Post

Exaclty, during the Roman empire's existence i bet not much ppl thought that it would die easily...

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Ralph Wiggum- thank you for refocusing things. Ill post a reply but ...not yet

[ralphwiggum 6]

But what happens if you destroy all the violins in an orchestra?  It won't work anymore, it might be able to get along without them but it's power will have weakened and it'll collapse easier than ever before...

the destruction of a part will not be easy. there are other parts that will prevent that from happening. furthermore, I think there will be new violinists to fill the void. complete elimination of any aspect in US is going to bring prevention to stop elimination from happening.

for example, Native Americans were struggling to get back on their feet after centuries of letting down. it may not be a visible prcess, but they are slowly getting back up. And there were a lot of, and will be pro-Native American rights group in various other places.

Every new empire lives in a new time era, has a different setup and has a different reason for falling appart. Just because the current world power shows little similarities with the previous ones, and with their reasons to fall appart, doesn't mean that this one won't. I'm sure there will be a totally original reason for the US to become less of what they are today, but I'm sure it will happen one day.

Every empire in history shows a life cycles. There are some various models, but a general pattern is obviously shown. One empire will easily donwgrade to a minimum, the other will just move down a place in line for the next, and some have totally vanished. The last example is not very obvious, unless you're thinking of nuclear war, alien invasion or a devistation virus.

Anyhow, there is a state of starting low; one of building up; a peak stage, where destruction seems mere fantasy; a stage of falling appart or breaking down; and last one of the tragic end.

true. however, ppl/group will not let the empire fall when they also have stakes in it. It is more desirable to take command of existing structure than starting one. why do you think that there are still a good number of CEOs and MBAs? It's a lot easier to climb the ladder of a group than to start a new one from scratch.

and yes, I agree with your cyclic nature. After all, Greeks were followed by Romans, UK, US. However, there is another thing to consider. In case of China, the gov't came and went, but people are still there. A new gov't is formed when ppl find it worthwhile. Externally, China is still a dominating power despite being a marginal nation for many years. They pretty much ruled Asia back long ago, and that was an isolated world, but they still ruled it like an empire. Now, many centuries later, they are coming back.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

True but that can be seen simply as part of the cyclical nature of history that postdifje mentions. Short of apocalyptic events the US people will not vanish but inevitably the power of the US will fall relative to other nations or regions

[Die Alive 0]

End of the USA?  Just vote Hamster in 2004

Quote[/b] ] Short of apocalyptic events the US people will not vanish but inevitably the power of the US will fall relative to other nations or regions

How about an alien invasion?  Like ID4 but with differnt outcome.

-=Die Alive=-

[sanctuary 19]

Quote[/b] ] Short of apocalyptic events the US people will not vanish but inevitably the power of the US will fall relative to other nations or regions

How about an alien invasion?  Like ID4 but with differnt outcome.

-=Die Alive=-

I already suggested that realistic threat on the usa  

[theavonlady 2]

[stgn 39]

I havent read it all but o those how says look at the history every empiret has to fall.

Well now the Roman power colapsed because it got to big and the was no monny to run it all (I think), USSR collapsed because komunisem leeds to nover. USA is not a empire like those two. besides Great Britan is still here it may not be a superpower but it is a power. And it is only us the Danes ho have quncured(sory for my spelling) it once back when ther was vikings.

STGN

[Supah 0]

If this ever becomes a reality we the dutch will rule the world seeing how we have massive experience with hemp! Plus we have been growing crops in green houses here for ages .... imagen the dutch as super power! That is gonna be so much fun The USA has been throwing fits over hemp for years now (well not woody harrelson but then again he is odd) Mark my words: The dutch will take over the world (or forget what they were doing while trying!)

[CrunchyFrog 0]

If this ever becomes a reality we the dutch will rule the world seeing how we have massive experience with hemp! Plus we have been growing crops in green houses here for ages .... imagen the dutch as super power! That is gonna be so much fun The USA has been throwing fits over hemp for years now (well not woody harrelson but then again he is odd) Mark my words: The dutch will take over the world (or forget what they were doing while trying!)

Oh, please.... Take over Denmark first!

[FallenPaladin 0]

Pah, the dutch can`t take over a thing! They are themselves taken over any holiday time by our german tourists and they never had a chance to fight them back.

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

lol, that car has a 420 sticker on the window.

[The Frenchman 0]

LOL, where did you find that?

[ralphwiggum 6]

let's get back on topic, shall we?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Empires and countries rarely collapse on their own. More often they are faced with an opponent that they can't compete with either economically or militarily. There is not a country out there at the moment that can do either- when one shows up, then we might be in trouble. Maybe.

[DracoPaladore 0]

I suspect the United States will hold firm ground in the future. Probobly takens many century's before they become oblivious. Their isolation from other nations either than Canada and Mexico make them pratically unreachable. Unlike European nations, no one can really come down and attack. Though, all nations and empires eventually collapse, such as the Roman empire. Its just inevitable as new forms of governmental structures, revolutions, or other forms of recreation take over.

Their isolation from other nations is probobly the reason why they are as powerful as they are now. No one has nor has been able to invade the United States.

That why I beleive that the United States are often known to eagerly enter wars. Their nations has had little to none contact in war except for their revolutionary war which gave them independence and Pearl Harbour. This is probobly the reason the WTC attacks were such a major shock for them as it would be to anybody in that situation. The United States hasn't been bombarded for years by artillery. Or Blitzed by  enemy tank divisions. Their capital has never been occupied or their people systematically wiped out by legions of soldiers. The scars of war have been quite fresh on the U.S.