In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1871
Online now 1292 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
It did, but I'm not sure that kind of brinkmanship is appropriate in the modern world.
Let's kill a few million people for the actions of what was probably a few thousand. Sounds like fun!
The short answer is taht I do not think it would have mattered what we would have done leading up to WWII.
I am not aware of any factual data that could support it, but as everyone knows, some things just happen.
Either way, here is a pretty dang good source IYAM.
Note: There was only one little nod in that that says isolationism may have helped Hitler rise to power.
University of Alabama: The high mark of college football since 1892
I mistook your words then.
I do disagree that any multi-national body would be able to prevent war. MAYBE, MAYBE deter war a little but war finds a way to happen unfortunately.
Fortunately for us, I don't see another traditional war happening again anytime soon. Most of the great military powers are on our side. The only real threats are terrorism, insurgencies, and rouge nations like North Korea getting access to nuclear weapons.
This post was edited by joetheogre 17 months ago
Before all is said and done I'm afraid we will have to drop several on China.
I agree completely with traditional wars not happening.
Those days are long gone, if another major war did occur it would be something vastly different, much like the difference between WWI and all the previous wars. So much better technology and the vast battlefields would be replaced with close quarter combat, and bombing along with a few tanks would take the place of infantry in huge fields. JMO
Exactly. Maybe drone wars are possible. But large numbers of human combatants taking the field would about as outdated as cavalry charges in WWI
I really, really doubt it. Our relationship with China is improving and to declare war on them would have drastic economic consequences. Both countries just benefit too much from one another.
Good way to get rid of national debt.
Thats the dang truth
Because starting a major worldwide nuclear war is a better option than owing some money?
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by joetheogre 17 months ago
Your sarcasm meter broken?
Nope. Cultural differences will prevent this from happening. As much as the left likes to think otherwise cultural ties are very strong to people, and people in China and the US(for example) aren't going to take to kindly to foreigners making their laws. I know you will find this hard to believe but the EU isn't the most popular entity in Europe, especially in places like GB. People want to rule themselves and that will never change.
Will probably be 50-100 years, but our world is only getting more and more global.
Nuclear war won't happen, and yeah major wars are great for the country that wins them.
Major wars are great for no one. They are tolerable to those that win them.
It really isn't. I don't doubt that more and more international trade organizations etc. will become more prevalent and necessary, but large multinational governments are not going to happen...ever.
Pick any continent...say North America, do you really think that that Mexicans and Canadians are going to be accepting of a government that will be run mostly by and cater mostly to people from the US...or former US in this example? The answer is no.
And North America is an easy one. I seriously doubt the Chinese, Indians and Saudis would ever agree to let each other have a say over their people.
Nope. And we haven't even touched language yet. Language is possibly the greatest dividing factor in history along with religion, which reminds me...religion. Also what is this global culture going to look like? Which of the current cultures will ultimately be more prevalent in the global culture? Will it resemble the West, the ME, East Asia, Latin America? If you think people all over the world are going to give to an encroaching global culture you are dreaming.
That's always been the case to an extent. And when countries get pushed to the point of war there are always overriding factors.
This post was edited by TroyTide 17 months ago
Maybe one day in the very distant future, and yeah it would be kinda nice assuming this would be a free society. But it seems unlikely even then. All over the world people are convinced their culture is the best and they aren't going to want to give it up, culture is an incredibly strong bond...even stronger than economics. Unless such a union means the difference in eating or not..which it won't...I on't see people giving into this. Trade Unions are one thing, governments that control continents are another.
And even if it did happen it would fail eventually. Relatively homogeneous nation-states have failed all through history over disagreements, now imagine the shear number of disagreements the people of the world will have on how to run things.
Yes, but that is very different than the ME and US trying to fit together they aren't even remotely similar.
This is how the EU was presented. I Read the websites of several European papers and like to visit international forums as well. The EU has now expanded into dictating national affairs on many levels, and over time European nations are becoming less autonomous. It's the nature of all governing bodies to seek to expand their power and influence. The EU is no exception.
This encroachment by the EU is not going over too well. Europeans recognize the obvious benefits of the union, but resent the hell out of Brussels continuously dictating internal affairs like immigration, tax policy etc.
And that doesn't even include the fact that the EU is kinda the "canary in the coal mine" for international currencies. It shows that all participants have to be fairly equal in order for a common currency to work. The world has a long way to go to achieve relative equality in economic health.
Also in support of the argument that the Unions would encroach on national sovereignty, is that fiscal policy has to be basically the same for everyone, which necessitates a larger governing body dictating much if not all fiscal policy for member nations.
You are talking about a global currency, and the Euro may very well not survive the decade.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports