Which Empire Shall Rule The 21st Century?

[StitchInTime]

Up until 2035 the US will be king' date=' after that, a coaltition of China and India will rule the world![/quote']

Until 2090, when Canada will surprise everyone by taking over the world using a new secret weapon that no one has ever tried before--could it be love? ;)

 

Canada's real secret weapon:

 

 

c4 :p

That too. :cyclops:

[lamp]

god what a moronic poll this is.

 

 

[Arktis]

agreed.

[Guest c4evap]

god what a moronic poll this is.

 

agreed.

 

If you find it so moronic...why did you post in it? You could simply got to another thread...yes?

 

c4 :thinking:

[xalloutwarx]

 

not bad eh?

[wahaha]

Lands WAHAHA has conquered!!

 

[magestorm]

I pick option number 3.

 

Nukes get detonated all over the world, killing all of mankind. The cockroaches will unite, and rule the Earth!!!!

 

Long live the Cockroach King! BWAHAHAHA!

[Guest c4evap]

I pick option number 3.

 

Nukes get detonated all over the world, killing all of mankind. The cockroaches will unite, and rule the Earth!!!!

 

Long live the Cockroach King! BWAHAHAHA!

 

 

c4 :cyclops:

[magestorm]

Here is a question. When the cockroaches rule, what will they define as the pests?

[StitchInTime]

Here is a question. When the cockroaches rule' date=' what will they define as the pests?[/quote']

Rats, . . . well, that is, after they've roasted us alive and eaten us, of course. :o

[messink]

How's about this?

 

NO one country will rule the entire world because modern warfare has become to expansive for one country to be able to finance large wars of conquest. Conquering a country by simply bombing it into the stone age is simple but after that you will have to rebuild that country and also HOLD it. Holding a country is impossible without establishing a very large troop presence there and that means spending loads of money. Take for example Iraq, the US have about 100000 troops there, the British 30000 and they simply can't make the country safe again. The troop presence in Iraq should have around 500000 soldiers from the start on but the US don't have that capacity, not even when they fight together with the British.

 

Nowadays armies are good at conquering because they can hit hard with relatively few troops, also due to large air forces but to hold a country one would need a large troop presence wich, with todays cost of weapons would be to expensive.

 

Economically, I believe that the EU will rule the world. The American economy is about to collapse because of the war in Iraq. When the US economy goes, so will the Chinese because they have invested all their money in the US.

When that happens, the EU economies will be hit heavily as well but less hard because the EU budget shortages are a lot smaller than that of the US and our economies are more stable. We have also spread out investments.

The EU recover faster than others and in that way rule the world economically.

[Tenebrae]

I don't think modern armies conquer in any traditional sense of the word. You can go in, destroy infrastructure to the point where your enemy surrenders but then you've got two problems.

 

1. The country you just invaded is a wreck (spot the word play)

2. You're going to have to expend a huge amount of resources keeping that area secure.

 

Unless you're going to do something genocidal - chemical/biological warfare - to neutralise the population, it's really not going to be worth your while. It's not like the old days where one could run in and loot and plunder. Nowadays war is pretty much about screwing over the enemy worse than he screws you.

 

For America, I'd say the biggest economic worry is the fact that Bush has managed to haemorrage more money out the US budget than a haemophiliac in an arthritic barbers. Storing up plenty of problems for the future... but I think you're selling China short and even if China were to fall, I imagine it could get up pretty fast and even if they didn't - India isn't too far behind.

 

It's likely that in the decades to come the EU and US (maybe Russia if they're up to it) will probably both recognise the impending dominance of India/China in terms of global economics. Rich white men will be scared that for the first time in centuries that their position of dominance is being challenged and will do their best to make sure that the status quo is maintained. Quite how that will play out - who can say.

 

The only certainty is that the US is probably going to be looking at two countries that could easily dwarf its production capability within our lifetimes. How that will affect the common man - be he in the USA, EU, China, India, hunkered down somewhere in South America or Africa, only time will tell.

[GorunNova]

Exactly... air power cannot hold land, and with the widespread usage of guerilla tactics, occupation is never anything BUT overly costly in lives, either in the form of occupying soldiers being killed, killing of the occupied people, or more frequently both. The international community doesn't look kindly at an occupying force slaughtering all dissidents, after all, and tend to respond with some serious economic sanctions. The days of military conquest are over.

 

... as for economic conquest, that's an entirely different story... and a darned insidious one at that.

[Anonyman]

The Empire brought modern civilisation to the rest of the world, and offered protection to it's colonies, not the one way exploitation that so many seem to think pervaded the Empire.

 

 

India's Ghandi would disagree with that. He pushed for home rule, because he grew tired of being treated like crap by the British.

 

 

[Brother]

SWEDEN WILL RULE THE VERS!!!!!!!!! FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!

[StitchInTime]

The Empire brought modern civilisation to the rest of the world' date=' and offered protection to it's colonies, not the one way exploitation that so many seem to think pervaded the Empire. [/quote']

 

India's Ghandi would disagree with that. He pushed for home rule, because he grew tired of being treated like crap by the British.

Oh, my. Don't get me started on the horrors that colonialism has wrought, and the terrible consequences of that evil legacy that continue to haunt us to this very day. The only purpose of colonialism was to make the British ruling classes filthy rich, and that's exactly what it did. For the countries subject to this oppressive system, it was a complete disaster, except for a small minority of favoured bureaucrats. (The only reason the colonizers left is that the endless wars between the various colonial powers eventually rendered this particular means of economic exploitation prohibitively expensive.)

 

For example, the genocide that occurred in Rwanda was an indirect result of British rule, which applied a policy of divide and conquer. The British colonizers created a huge class division, where none had previously existed, and exploited it to stay in power. Then, when the British left, the indigenous people paid the price in blood, while the so-called 'developed,' Western world sat back and watched it happen, without lifting a finger to stop the carnage.

 

There are many other examples of this, and the saga continues, in the form of post-colonial imperialism being exercised by economic means rather than physical occupation, mostly through policies that keep the former colonies in debt to Western countries.

[MrDad]

The Empire brought modern civilisation to the rest of the world' date=' and offered protection to it's colonies, not the one way exploitation that so many seem to think pervaded the Empire. [/quote']

 

India's Ghandi would disagree with that. He pushed for home rule, because he grew tired of being treated like crap by the British.

 

For example, the genocide that occurred in Rwanda was an indirect result of British rule, which applied a policy of divide and conquer. The British colonizers created a huge class division, where none had previously existed, and exploited it to stay in power. Then, when the British left, the indigenous people paid the price in blood, while the so-called 'developed,' Western world sat back and watched it happen, without lifting a finger to stop the carnage.

In 1890 the country was given to the Germans at a conference in Brussels, but there was virtually no German presence in the area until the end of the century. The Belgians were awarded some German spoils after the First World War, including Rwanda. They tended to simplify matters; transforming the majority Tutsi elite into a solely Tutsi elite, with position in society determined by ethnicity. Colonial identity cards even used ethnic affiliation as a classification despite the fact that Tutsis and Hutus shared many cultural characteristics including geography, language and traditional practices. Tutsis enjoyed privileged status under Belgian rule and were able to secure better jobs and better education than Hutus for the next two decades.

 

Belgium controlled both Rwanda and neighbouring Burundi from the end of the First World War until independence in 1962.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide

You might want to learn some history before you pontificate upon it.

[eenie]

the new century is likely to be dominated by china and india- if we in the english speaking world are gonna stay in our accustomed place on top then some kind of federation between us/uk/aust and canada will be necessary- maybe the yanks should admit the revolution was a mistake, come back under the crown and get a decent healthcare system like the rest of us . its easy- get rid of the presidency and have responsible parliamentary government instead of putting power in the hands of one man who may or may not be either a religious nut or incapable of keeping his flies zipped but is always in the pockets of big business

[str82u]

I didn't vote, I think we are both in our own worlds. Not that the planet isn't getting smaller due to technology, but at the same time we are two idependant groups.

[garth]

look on the bright side whoever has the most power is who gets attacked for every perceived injustice.

I am sure when capitalism has given all the jobs to cheap labour countries they will aid us (probably to die)

Yes I am a cynic mercifully for me I am of an age where I will die before it happens