That's because it's getting late and I have just enough time to do something, but not enough to start a game. There is a span of 30-45 minutes each day where I have no life.

But yours tastes better.

*Sigh*
You know what, Obi? You win. You are obviously the master of political and social debate, sent to redeem the unenlightened masses. So you can now dispense your ignorance freely, without me to interrupt the gushing torrent of stupidity that is the inner workings of your adolescent mind.

And on a completely random note, do Obi's rants remind anyone else of the "Vital Information for Your Everyday Lives" skit from the old "All That"?

[Edited for spelling]

BE QUIET (happy now?). You are bringing back extremely dark memories from my childhood

Why did you tell him to shut up? BAN! (It's a joke. Easy tiger.)

What? You can be banned for telling someone to shut up? Geeze it was just a joke I'll edit my post if it is that offensive.

I can't even tell who is being sarcastic anymore (I know I sure am)

Bah, I'm confused as well

What?! How could you not like those? Unless, of course, you're talking about the ones with the kid from "Pete and Pete", in which case I'd agree with you. The whole "Sheep in my pants" line gets old after awhile.

Pete and Pete=Good
All That with Pete=NOT GOOD

Quoted for truth.

good point. Sure, they gave us a big copper statue a long time ago, but what have they done for us lately that we should listen to them? Their interests in pre-war Iraq was a conflict of interest, IMO.

The actions of the United States affect the entire world, so it makes sense that the entire world has influence over the actions of the United States.
No country exists on its own, least of all the United States. It is an organisation such as the UN that is the future of international integration. The old concept of 'nation states' no longer exists. The whole point of the UN is to enforce law without military force, but rather economic force. The UN sanctions against Iraq may well have prevented Saddam Hussein from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, despite the adverse effects on the Iraqi people. It was the UN sanction that was protecting the US.

Yes, it is a shame that it has no power over the US. But with greater integration from other members, perhaps this may be possible. The US is terribly reliant upon China and Saudi Arabia, and if the other members offered economic support then they could withdraw their financial influence over the US. That is sort of how the UN is supposed to function, with all the other countries "ganging up" on one.
With America already as the most hated country in the world, you'll be sorry when all the "little crappy African countries" withdraw their trade contracts for oil, natural gas and gold.
With the lack of any other superpower, this system is necessary to put the US in check. The EU will be an important factor in this too.

The UN has many achievements already.

- Since 1945, the United Nations has been credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts.

- More than 30 million refugees fleeing war, famine or persecution have received aid from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees since 1951.

- UN agencies have worked to make safe drinking water available to 1.3 billion people in rural areas during the last decade.

- A 13-year effort by the World Health Organization resulted in the complete eradication of smallpox from the planet in 1980. The eradication has saved an estimated $1 billion a year in vaccination and monitoring.

- UNEP led a major effort to clean up the Mediterranean Sea. It encouraged adversaries such as Syria and Israel, Turkey and Greece to work together to clean up beaches. As a result, more than 50 per cent of the previously polluted beaches are now usable.

- The UN Population Fund, through its family planning programmes, has enabled people to make informed choices, and consequently given families, and especially women, greater control over their lives. As a result, women in devloping countries are having fewer children - from six births per woman in the 1960s to 3.5 today.


This is only possible through international integration. It is through organisations that the UN that the whole concept of 'countries' will become irrelevant.

Heh, you say that like it wouldn't effect the rest of the world if the U.S. crashed because of that happening.

The rest of the world would be affected of course, because everyone has their fingers in the US somewhere. But if the economy crashed, it would simply be a matter of putting their fingers elsewhere - such as the EU.

Of course. It'd be that simple. The EU requires nothing from the U.S. and could fully support itself. Those little nations in Africa could simply shift their focus to the EU. Asia would be just fine and dandy too. Yup, what a wonderful static world we live in.

[edit - typo (i.e. simple = simply)]

Sorry Flex.

Roach Wins.

What exactly does the US offer that no other country does? The US has little in terms of natural resources.
The only advantage is that you're dealing with one single country, rather than lots of smaller ones, but through the EU and UN and similar organisations, those several countries can be treated as a single country.

Oh, I see. So trying to starve the U.S. would be a great way to make them cooperate, right? Because a nation with power that is desperate for basic materials would never do anything irrational...

"Oh hey, let's stop feeding, Mike. Sure, he has a sharp knife, and is a little stronger than each of us individually, but by golly, he's making us mad. He'll understand."

The US has little in terms of natural...hahaha
I can't finish the sentence. Mort, the rest of your posts at least are true. The US has TONS of natural resources--just not enough to completely be independent.

... which are imported from other countries.

Consumers.

Now, I'm no business or economics major -- CS BS, here -- but I do believe that countries that rely upon the exporting of great amounts of materials to the U.S. would suffer if the U.S. was no longer a customer.

That's 0.293 billion (and growing) customers they've lost.

The US consumes the most food in the world out of any country iirc. That's a lot of business lost if so.

And flex--we have enough resources in our own country to be of help to the world, nto to mention we have the ability to create things that most places don't with other materials. Such as the fact that we create massive amounts of steel, and our research divisions (usually colleges) discover new things every day, things that the rest of the world would be far behind where we are now without.

Not Canada :p

You also forgot that the US produces and exports the most food. If other countries stopped trading with us and we cut off their food supply, they'd beg for forgiveness pretty quick.

So, let's stop with all this hypothetical crap and go back to talking about how Koffi Annan is a no-name national political official.

So, Anan is the deciding factor eh? Let's not forget that the UN has at least as big of scandal going on with regards to Iraq as the US might.

http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/industry/otea/trade-detail/Latest-December/Exports/index.html

Those are our EXPORTED resources, doesn't even count the ones we use ourselves.

Bahahahaha! The only thing I can possibly conclude from this statement is that you get a kick out of saying such blatantly wrong things, so you have more people to debate against. The mineral resources of the U.S. far exceed those of any other nation. We have (vast deposits of) the widest variety of mineral resources that are used in industry. Out of all minerals used for insudstrial purposes, we produce all but nickel, tin and platinum. We are basically independent (and have by far the largest export) when it comes to mineral resources.

Do you realize that the United States has, by some estimates, more coal than the rest of the world combined? It's estimated that more than 500,000 square miles of coal fields reside in America, or 1/13th the surface area of the country. Not only do we have the most quantity, but the best quality. The U.S. also produces more iron than any other country. That's important; iron is the most important and widely used natural resource in industry.

Oil. Though we aren't the biggest producer of petroleum in the world, we are one of the major producers. It's estimated that there is still 8-10 times as much petroleum untapped in the U.S. as we've extracted since 1859.

Natural gas. Gee, what a surprise! The U.S. leads the world in natural gas production! I never would have guessed. We're the leader in food exports, as Schming said, and unsurprisingly, the United States accounts for 62% of the world's exports. The runner up? China, at a piddley 5%.

Next time do some research before saying something so assininely wrong.

The United States is one of four countries in the world that produces more food than it consumes. Good luck starving us.

And I think I'll just add you to the list of people who I endorse for breeding.

A GDP that's higher than the second and third highest GDPs put together as well as the highest purchasing power parity of any country. We're filthy ****ing rich. That's what we offer to other countries - the world's largest market. And no, we really *can't* be replaced.

Also, do you really think the EU is ever going to become a super-state to rival the US? With as many divergent interests and languages as member states and stagnant or shrinking economies in the west, the notion is ridiculous. How do you expect countries like Germany to compete with the US when their populations are shrinking and yet refuse to modify their social economies? The new additions to the EU, the ones that are growing - the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, etc.. have in every recent divisive issue sided not with France and Germany but with the United States.

Barring some sort of catastrophic disaster, the US is going to be the most powerful state on in the world for a long, long time. China and India may grow, but by 2050 the population of China will be 1.5 billion to the US' 500 million. The population gap is shrinking, not growing. And China has had many opportunities in its long history to expand and dominate more than its immediate sphere of influence, but it never has.

All you people who say the world could band together and cut the US off from vital resources and markets are right, in a sense. But why should they? Most of the world is reasonably happy with the economic status quo - yes, there are arguments about farm subsidies, but they will be resolved through the WTO, and no country is keen on shooting itself in the foot by harming its own prospects for wealth and prosperity to 'teach the US a lesson'. Why are you?

Why not me?

Sine--Holy frelling crap. I agree with you.

can someone imaging that: Massassi Forums without CNN or BBC news?!;)