[vicente]

Tman1 Tman1:

First, I never said the U.S wasn't and like you said, "This poll is silly" and you should have ended it right there. The U.S is certainly a leader in global politics and influence but those by themselves doesn't make anybody "more poweful" out of the combined people on the planet. I think people give too much thought into this and automatically proclaim the U.S the sole super power on the planet, kind of like its rulers yet give the exact same reasons that people have been droning on about since the end of the Cold War. The U.S doesn't have monopoly on every resource on the planet and they trade with everybody else. If the U.S was the most powerful country in the world, I suppose all the oil is theirs for the taking right? Simply walk right in and take what they want? Judging from the current problems the U.S is facing right now, if they want to continue to be the only power in the world, something has to be done.

The question is not: "Does the U.S. execute supreme and absolute authority over the whole world?" In that case, I would also say no. It is "Is the USA the most powerful country in the world?"

$1:

Subjective? How, because you say so?

Yes, because I say so. I am that bad at debating.

vicente vicente:

There is far more regional variation in poverty and development in the EU than in the U.S. Trade barriers lower productivity and standard of living.

$1:

No economy is not without its problems, therefore, the EU seem to be doing just fine.

By that logic, since the Mexican economy is growing by 4.5% (higher than that of Canada), it must be doing just fine, despite 40% of its population being below the poverty line?

$1:

It's obviously not perfect but might you have any insight that the EU is facing a economic crisis? I don't hear them squabbling over border walls, bitching about lumber.

Do you have any evidence that the EU standard of living is not up to par as in the U.S or is what you are saying "subjective" itself?

Average and mean income levels, and GDP per capita by purchasing power parity. The only countries in the EU that are possibly richer than the U.S. are Luxembourg and Ireland. You can bring up Quality of Life and UN HDI all you want but we are talking solely about standard of living (i.e., how "well off" one is).

The internal economic problems in the EU are more significant than those within the U.S. Agricultural programs and subsidies take up the largest portion of the EU budget. Regions like Poland and eastern Germany require millions of $ in their equivalent of equalization payments. Regions of millions of people that have unemployment rates exceeding 15%. (Can you name any U.S. state doing this badly?) Ethnic nationalist sentiment that encourages separatism and non-cooperation between different nation states and nation sub-states (e.g. France being angry at a contract being awarded to a German company instead of a French one). Different business cycles: the EU might lower interest rates because on average the economy is slowing down; then a country with high inflation gets even higher inflation!

I would hazard to say that these problems are far more important than border walls and lumber. (fyi, Spain does have border walls with Morocco, and the EU has its share of trade disputes)

$1:

You should really learn to read more carefully, especially on what you write. You asked what other country has a larger military and I responded that many do. NK has a larger army, China, etc. You never specified on your statement. Obviously the U.S spends more on the military, big deal. Is that what you think automatically makes them the most powerful nation on the planet? Chee.

Military refers to everything in total. The U.S. spends the most, and has the highest technology and quantity of military ability.

$1:

Well, Madonna is British, Ozzy Osborne is British....you forget about the British? You think everything comes from the U.S? Perhaps you should focus on other cultural aspects in the world.

So because a couple acts from one country are famous, the country is just as culturally dominant as the U.S.? I listen to music from South America and France and read modern Latin American literature but I am well aware that their reach is limited compared to the widespread prolification of their U.S. equivalents. You can cite me all the individual British examples you want, but the fact is the country that has the largest output of film and music that is heard worldwide is the U.S.

[Biblical_Christian]

I personally think they are trying to transfer thier superpower status to Europe. In 9/11, 50 Billion dollars was transfered to Europe.

[Schleihauf]

baylee baylee:

stratos stratos:

TheFoundersIntent TheFoundersIntent:

The US has many reasons to come to the aid of Canada if it is ever invaded.

Do you really type that and not laugh

Like really, who do you think is going to invade Canada ?

SO STUPID







The biggest threat to Canada, and the world, is the Americans




( soft wood deal)

You must have missed the "if".

[Tman1]

vicente vicente:

The question is not: "Does the U.S. execute supreme and absolute authority over the whole world?" In that case, I would also say no. It is "Is the USA the most powerful country in the world?"

So...you have nothing then? Ok. Done.

$1:

Yes, because I say so. I am that bad at debating.

Then you are still wrong and still a bad debator.

$1:

By that logic, since the Mexican economy is growing by 4.5% (higher than that of Canada), it must be doing just fine, despite 40% of its population being below the poverty line?

Argumentive and logistical fallacy aside, Mexico is one nation, a very corrupt nation and the EU are a conglomerate of nations who have high standards of living. The Mexican economy can grow all it wants but when 40 pecent of its people are poor, that economy isn't going to do much. Most of that economy goes to resorts and tourism.

$1:

Average and mean income levels, and GDP per capita by purchasing power parity. The only countries in the EU that are possibly richer than the U.S. are Luxembourg and Ireland. You can bring up Quality of Life and UN HDI all you want but we are talking solely about standard of living (i.e., how "well off" one is).

Ok, tell me the difference between the Quality of Life and Standard of Living?

$1:

I would hazard to say that these problems are far more important than border walls and lumber. (fyi, Spain does have border walls with Morocco, and the EU has its share of trade disputes)

I asked you if you had evidence that the EU standard of living isn't up to par with the U.S. Pasting down economic problems and trade barriers in the EU doesn't change the fact that the EU is a powerful alternative to the U.S in terms of wealth and standard of living. This argument isn't about who has less problems on their agriculture programs or trade barriers. I am very much aware the problems on both sides. Oh, FYI, besides your bad geography (how are their walls between a strait of water between Spain and Morocco?) Morocco isn't a part of the EU.

$1:

Military refers to everything in total. The U.S. spends the most, and has the highest technology and quantity of military ability.

Uhh no. You asked:What other country has a larger military? which taken in context means the total armed forces of the military. Not what it spends or the highest technology which would require an expansion on your original statement. Highest quantity of military ability? That makes no sense. There are good soldiers and bad soldiers in any military.

$1:

So because a couple acts from one country are famous, the country is just as culturally dominant as the U.S.? I listen to music from South America and France and read modern Latin American literature but I am well aware that their reach is limited compared to the widespread prolification of their U.S. equivalents. You can cite me all the individual British examples you want, but the fact is the country that has the largest output of film and music that is heard worldwide is the U.S.

You're missing the point as usual and I'd say if you are listening to those sorts of things, then those cultural components are reaching around the world right? How do you know their reach is limited? Are you the only one who listens and reads those things? All I said is that other cultures have their own influence, not just American. That itself still doesn't make the U.S the most powerful nation on the planet if we were to get back to the original argument at hand.

$1:

You can cite me all the individual British examples you want, but the fact is the country that has the largest output of film and music that is heard worldwide is the U.S.

THat's nice and I wasn't even disagreeing with you, which indicates you don't read very carefully and are basing facts only on your own opinion and interests. Then you ignore the fact that Madonna wasn't even American and you even said the whole world knows who Madonna is so tell me this, would that not make Britain a musical and cultural influence like the U.S? Obviously if everybody's heard of Madonna right? You didn't even know what nationality Madonna was so do you automatically assume everything on TV and music is American? Oops.

Michael Jackson? Give me a break. What about AC/DC? Damn, what about those Beetles in the 60s? I suppose you probably think they were American. You have yet to state any "overwhelming" influence that the U.S culture dominates over the rest of the world. More projecting.

[TheFoundersIntent]

Schleihauf Schleihauf:

baylee baylee:

stratos stratos:

TheFoundersIntent TheFoundersIntent:

The US has many reasons to come to the aid of Canada if it is ever invaded.

Do you really type that and not laugh

Like really, who do you think is going to invade Canada ?

SO STUPID







The biggest threat to Canada, and the world, is the Americans




( soft wood deal)

You must have missed the "if".

STRATOSpheric stupidity

[commanderkai]

tritium tritium:

China has a the largest military in the world by shear numbers, the EU has been creating a more advanced military than the United States.

Sheer numbers means very little in warfare. Technological advantage is key. Better trained and equipped soldiers will have a much better kill to death ratio against a poorly armed foe.

Using the Korean War KIA totals, the US and her allies had less than 100000 causalities, (total from the Wiki adding is 97740), while the KIA for the North Korean side is 615,000 (using 400,000 deaths by the Chinese, seems more realistic).

A 6 to 1 ratio using Korean War technology.

Now even factoring that the Chinese has developed further, it wouldn't make much difference since the US still has sheer superior technological advantage. Its air superiority basically guarantees it victory in true warfare.

[Bacardi4206]

Numbers don't mean Military Power, Numbers are a advantage and are very helpful but it's all about technology. Whoever has the most technological advantage in war is the most powerful. Right now, that is the U.S. They got tech coming out of there ass's. There navy is the best, They got great tanks, they got the best transport choppers. Those ones that start as a plane, then once they reach there target they transform into a helicopter and hover down. They got the best Infantry Equipment, expecially when they get there Land Warrior system operational and into action. They are getting new naval ships in like 2012 or further that are going to be like 10x better then there current. Which were already the best navy ships.

Canada has the best training in the world, there is no question about it. Canada just lacks the numbers, and tech to be one of the best, if not the best military power.

How many times in history, expecially Chinese history has it proven that numbers in warfare don't mean anything. It's all about tech, in WW2 the Nazi's were extremly out numbered. Yet they kept advancing, they did get there ass's kicked a lot of times and had to retreat and eventually lost due to facing the entire world basicly but beside for there allys. For a single country, they did extremly well because they were too tech advanced. In WW1, France I believe had the best tanks at that period, however hitler had gotten radios for his tanks so they can communicate with each other. They completly anhilated there tanks, due to the fact they could communicate with each other, despite the fact france had much better tanks.

Vietnam, Vietnamese were constantly throwing numbers at the U.S., to only get whiped out. Because the U.S. was a lot more advanced, and better equiped.

[Streaker]

Yet the Americans lost in Vietnam.

[C.M. Burns]

Is the USA the most powerful country on earth?
Hmmm... by which criteria?
Hottest chix? No, Russia wins hands down.
Largest economy? Nope, that's China.
No, their only claim to world biggest lies with the military. They spend more on the military than all other countries on earth combined.

It's like those Hollywood movies - the hero is down, enemies everywhere, all he can do is arm himself to the teeth and hope for the best as blasts away with his pair of chain guns.

DUCK!

[sasquatch2]

C.M. Burns

$1:

Is the USA the most powerful country on earth?
Hmmm... by which criteria?
Hottest chix? No, Russia wins hands down.
Largest economy? Nope, that's China.
No, their only claim to world biggest lies with the military. They spend more on the military than all other countries on earth combined.

It's like those Hollywood movies - the hero is down, enemies everywhere, all he can do is arm himself to the teeth and hope for the best as blasts away with his pair of chain guns.

As far as economy that is really hard to peg down. Much of China's economic gain has been gained as a consequence of going cheap and nasty. It's population is rapidly aging and declinning in health as a result of it's un-checked polution...both factors which will drain it's treasury and soon.

One of the consequences of recovering from a communist "pretend economy". Currently the new Russian President on VE day vowed to provide housing by 2010 for ALL WW2 vets......WW2 ended 63 years ago. China has an aging population soon reaching retiremnt age without savings or a pension----

[commanderkai]

Streaker Streaker:

Yet the Americans lost in Vietnam.

Vietnam was lost due to loss of support and the guerrilla tactics of the Vietcong. How do you kill an enemy that hides among the civilian populace?

The Americans never really lost a battle in Vietnam, but propaganda warfare (partially due to American media) brought morale down. Morale is just as important to warfare as technology.

The guerrilla tactics could have been overcome by either destroying bases of support, or just destroying the jungle completely.

[sasquatch2]

commanderkai

Streaker wrote:

$1:

Yet the Americans lost in Vietnam.

$1:

Vietnam was lost due to loss of support and the guerrilla tactics of the Vietcong. How do you kill an enemy that hides among the civilian populace?

The Americans never really lost a battle in Vietnam, but propaganda warfare (partially due to American media) brought morale down. Morale is just as important to warfare as technology.

The guerrilla tactics could have been overcome by either destroying bases of support, or just destroying the jungle completely.

No the americans did not lose in Viet Nam, they lost in the living rooms of america and then went home. The hearts and minds were lost in america not Viet Nam.

[lostalex]

whomever said Madonna is not American, is an idiot. Madonna most certainly IS American. She grew up in Michigan, spent her entire formative years in America. She IS still an American citizen. She divides her time between UK and US now because she is married to an irish man, but she IS an American citizen and an AMERICAN institution. she identifies herself as American. her children have American accents.

anyone that is trying to claim Madonna as a BRITISH artist is an idiot, and is being totally disengenous.

[CanAm1]

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.

Hard to fight a war being Politically correct. The US could have won easily there and in vietnam if it weren't for the PC crowd. One strategically placed nuke in Iran would have quelled any insurection immediately. Instead they let them off the ropes and are fighting with both hands tied, by rules of engagement only they have to follow. The process is now nation building, the war for all intents and purposes is done. Smatterings of events will go on. Don't let the media wing of the democrat party fool you. If the full weight of the hammer were allowed to come down it would be done.

[tritium]

CanAm1 CanAm1:

Hard to fight a war being Politically correct. The US could have won easily there and in vietnam if it weren't for the PC crowd. One strategically placed nuke in Iran would have quelled any insurection immediately. Instead they let them off the ropes and are fighting with both hands tied, by rules of engagement only they have to follow. The process is now nation building, the war for all intents and purposes is done. Smatterings of events will go on. Don't let the media wing of the democrat party fool you. If the full weight of the hammer were allowed to come down it would be done.

Korea, China and many other adversaries to the United States have nuclear capabilities, so what stops them siding with Iran and sending a nuke back to New York, Los Angeles and an all out nuclear is created?

Trying to solve everything with 1 nuke is not the answer and does not show power.
http://pro-resources.net/nuclear-weapon.html

If you ask me, the finatic Mulsim is a better soldier than it's U.S. counterpart because they are willing to die for their cause. Such as the Sucide Bomber that can deliver a bomb to the front door of an embassy, or other important strategic locations.