Internet "kill switch"

Jay

the fool on the hill
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,280
Location
Aurora, IL
Yes. I am pro U.S. if you could tell. It is my hope that the U.S. can remain powerful for many decades to come and to retain that power I hope our leaders take correct action.

Sounds like Teddy Roosevelt imperialism.
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
Sounds like Teddy Roosevelt imperialism.

It is in the best interest of the United States to remain on top for as long as possible. To draw down our power, to become isolationist as many have suggested would only lead to degradation and destruction. Many do not realize the role of the United States. The term "policeman" is far to simple to explain how the presence of the U.S. influences the rest of the world. Continued global trade, continued relative peace all hing on the U.S. being as powerful as it is and that it is willing to use the power that it has. In a sense it is a stabilizing force, always there in the minds of the various global leaders. If anything the U.S. should be out there more, not less.
 

Dogbert

Helsinki Smash Rod
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
6,458
Location
N38? 43', W90? 22'
Car(s)
Roger Dean's Rocks
I am fond of the idea of the United States having that kind of power over other countries however I do question who would make the decision in the U.S.
This pretty much solved any internal debate I had over this issue. Thanks, jetsetter!

We can't even kill a meter-wide oil well in the ocean, but we think we can kill the internet. Sometimes I'm ashamed of the people in my country.
 
Last edited:

Jay

the fool on the hill
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,280
Location
Aurora, IL
It is in the best interest of the United States to remain on top for as long as possible. To draw down our power, to become isolationist as many have suggested would only lead to degradation and destruction. Many do not realize the role of the United States. The term "policeman" is far to simple to explain how the presence of the U.S. influences the rest of the world. Continued global trade, continued relative peace all hing on the U.S. being as powerful as it is and that it is willing to use the power that it has. In a sense it is a stabilizing force, always there in the minds of the various global leaders. If anything the U.S. should be out there more, not less.

I would like to point out something to viewers of this thread: I listen to right wing radio talk host Rush Limbaugh daily, and this is virtually word for word what he states, also.

C'mon, be original....
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
I would like to point out something to viewers of this thread: I listen to right wing radio talk host Rush Limbaugh daily, and this is virtually word for word what he states, also.

C'mon, be original....

I do not list to Rush Limbaugh nor any other political radio show (I put no stock in enforced social conservatism and I think that position would put me at odds with many of those radio hosts). Morning comedy radio shows, music, and some NPR is about it for me. The rest of the time I am listening to audio lectures by college professors. The position I gave is one I have formed through my studies.
 
Last edited:

AiR

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
11,985
Location
Suecia
Car(s)
Bulgogi Knedliky 1.6 GDI (Hyundai i30)
continued relative peace all hing on the U.S. being as powerful as it is and that it is willing to use the power that it has. In a sense it is a stabilizing force, always there in the minds of the various global leaders. If anything the U.S. should be out there more, not less.
Mmmmm carpet-bombing asian countries, invading not one but two muslim countries, shooting down civilian airliners, a real interest in peace that. Your country is so much in debt (to communists even!) that it's only a matter of time until your little house of cards comes down.

Yes I know, don't feed the trolls.
 
Last edited:

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
Mmmmm carpet-bombing asian countries, invading not one but two muslim countries, shooting down civilian airliners, a real interest in peace that.

Oh, it could be so so much worse. An increasingly multipolar world is a world with less peace. Of that you can be assured. One only has to take a look at the history books and that is something I have done extensively. The Pax Americana is a very real thing and it is unfortunate that so many will only realize its benefits when its gone.
 

2Billion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,642
Car(s)
'10 Toyota Matrix XR
Oh, it could be so so much worse. An increasingly multipolar world is a world with less peace. Of that you can be assured. One only has to take a look at the history books and that is something I have done extensively. The Pax Americana is a very real thing and it is unfortunate that so many will only realize its benefits when its gone.

So the continually degrading situation in the Middle East and Korea is an example of awesome peacekeeping? Interesting! Wrong, but interesting!

Hell, if you look at the history books - specifically American history, in and around the late 1700s - you'll realize that most wars have been fought to PREVENT a country from having undue influence over the sovereignty of another. Peace is about compromise, not about one country having undue amounts of power over others.
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
So the continually degrading situation in the Middle East and Korea is an example of awesome peacekeeping? Interesting! Wrong, but interesting!

As I said, we should be out there more. Had we been more willing to involve ourselves I suspect some of the current problems would not have arisen. However I believe that the situation could have been much worse in both cases. Look, I was never talking about a total peace, that has never occurred and never will occur. I am talking about restraint with respect of the larger powers.

Hell, if you look at the history books - specifically American history, in and around the late 1700s - you'll realize that many (some might even argue all) wars have been fought to PREVENT a country from having undue influence over the sovereignty of another. Peace is about compromise, not about one country having undue amounts of power over others.

I am well aware of the "concert of Europe" as it was referred to and in many cases the preservation of that concert led to more war, not less.
 

Mitlov

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
1,374
Location
Medford, Oregon, USA
Car(s)
2011 Civic Si, 2002 SV650
There has always been, and there will always be, at least one world superpower. If the United States were to abandon its role as superpower, we would not be left with a "share and share alike" world were everybody suddenly respects each other. Instead, another economic and military superpower would arise. Most likely the People's Republic of China, possibly a Putinized Russia. I don't see either country right now as doing a better job than America has done as superpower.

On the other hand, when it reaches the point of inevitability that they're going to succeed us as superpower, we don't do any good by struggling to stay stronger than them. Instead, that leads to economic collapse due to overexertion. See: Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War, and the recession Russia has felt ever since. Better to realize once your era has ended and retreat as gracefully as possible. Britain is an example of how to live as a post-superpower nation.

I think the best thing would be for America, as imperfect as we are, to stay a superpower for the time people, making a better effort to play the role well (of course, one must realize that no superpower has ever been some utopian benevolent power that leaves everyone in its wake happy and prosperous. China is continuing to liberalize at a slow but steady pace. Eventually, I think we're going to have to say "gg" to them and gracefully retreat from superpower status, but I don't think it's something that should be done in 2010.
 

2Billion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,642
Car(s)
'10 Toyota Matrix XR
There has always been, and there will always be, at least one world superpower. If the United States were to abandon its role as superpower, we would not be left with a "share and share alike" world were everybody suddenly respects each other. Instead, another economic and military superpower would arise. Most likely the People's Republic of China, possibly a Putinized Russia. I don't see either country right now as doing a better job than America has done as superpower.

On the other hand, when it reaches the point of inevitability that they're going to succeed us as superpower, we don't do any good by struggling to stay stronger than them. Instead, that leads to economic collapse due to overexertion. See: Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War, and the recession Russia has felt ever since. Better to realize once your era has ended and retreat as gracefully as possible. Britain is an example of how to live as a post-superpower nation.

I think the best thing would be for America, as imperfect as we are, to stay a superpower for the time people, making a better effort to play the role well (of course, one must realize that no superpower has ever been some utopian benevolent power that leaves everyone in its wake happy and prosperous. China is continuing to liberalize at a slow but steady pace. Eventually, I think we're going to have to say "gg" to them and gracefully retreat from superpower status, but I don't think it's something that should be done in 2010.

Of course, you don't want to have a sudden retreat and create a power vacuum, but you ALSO don't want to overextend yourself, or try to police the world. If the US started meddling in North Korea, for example, you'd piss off China, who would retaliate. That's going to create a hell of a lot more war. If the US started cutting off everyone's internet, as Jetsetter suggests they should be able to do, counties are going to get pissed off and start attacking, whether or not they have a chance of winning. Nobody limits China's internet but China.

Frankly, the only reason the US is getting away with fucking up in the Middle East is because that region is really disorganized.

Every time the US pisses another country off, that's another country that's going to think about to starting crap, that's all there is to it. Countries don't like other people impeding on their sovereignty, and when countries do, wars start.
 

Firecat

Politically Charged
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,730
The world can't police itself, and the United Nations hasn't done much lately in terms of keeping peace. So if the United States were to assert itself more (and with the actual intention of peacekeeping and not expansionism), then I think Jetsetter is right....the world would probably be better off and safer. For all its faults, I don't think there exists a better choice of superpower than the United States.
 
Top