Where do they rank all time?

Rome was full of fags, they WISH they were us. We're the reincarnation of the British Empire if we're gonna be a reincarnation.

Leave being the reincarnation of Rome to the shitters who destroyed it. Gob-bless.

US is on the decline. They’ll be a regional power in 30 years. Not from the success of their rivals, but their own idiocy. Fuckers are the richest nation on earth but still have people living in third world poverty and the worst healthcare system in the developed world.

Russia has more nuclear and chemical weapons. They're probably more powerful and would turn America into a brighter cinder than Russia itself would be. They also have less to lose so will come out on top.

>into a brighter cinder than Russia itself would be
I mean yeah, most of Russia would still be "habitable" since there's like, only one thing to actually nuke.

Not it wasn't retard.

Read a book about the Iraq invasion.

It always drives me crazy how internet autists think they know the true driver of US foreign policy when the policymakers themselves all write tell all's a decade after and documents get declassified and leaked constantly.

>"Nuuuu uhhh, all policymakers like about their true intentions and reasoning. The robust debates and leaks are all a smoke screen for the petrodollar driving all policy. But no one ever declassified those schemes. Also books by former NSC members or Secretaries of state or policy professors are not as accurate as this YouTube I found by JewOilDollar729!"

Agree. Keeping most of your nation in poverty is actually choking the economy - no purchasing power. American dream was built on New Deal.

It's not idiocy though. US is run by people with money. And their goal is more money acquired quickly, not the good of the nation.

>chemical weapons

No, they've destroyed everything. I promiss.

>Not it wasn't retard.
>Read a book

Is that your argument?

Number 1. This isn't even disputable, they could destroy all previous global hegemons simultaneously, due to technological advancements. the empire that replaces them (probably China) will likewise be more powerful than the USA ever was, assuming we avoid a global dark age.

>Here, you made a typo so my retard logic is right!

>>china
Doubtful that they will ever be capable of having the same sort of control over the world that the US has even if the PRC can manage to fix all their internal issues. The US has a mix of soft and hard power that the PRC simply can't compete with.

That said, I could very easily see China becoming a global power in the sense that they will be able to project power overseas.

I want you to state your argument, hoping to have a conversation. I don't care for your typos. But the lack of your reasoning and following ad hominems are icreasingly iritating.

Yeah, but other nations are not that much weaker like the Roman Empire to some bumfuck tribes across the Rhine. It's more like when French Napoopan roflstomped the entire Europe. Sure, the French could beat everyone, but they could also be beaten up by other nations ganging up on them. Meanwhile nobody could do it against The Roman Empire at its height.

In terms of historical relevance for a history board?
Well the list of historical significance (based on global impact, scientific accomplishments and cultural accomplishments) would be as follows:
1) Britain
2) France
3) Germany
4) Italy
5) USA
6) Spain
7) China
8) Russia
9) India
10) Greece

For historical power (relative of course):
1) 1st Persian empire
2) British Empire
3) Roman empire
4) Mongol empire
5) USA
6) Spanish empire
7) Dutch empire
8) Alexander's empire
9) French continental empire
10) Russian empire

For economic power:
1) Middle Indian Kingdoms
2) Han China
3) British Empire
4) USA
5) 1st Persian Empire
6) Roman Empire
7) Ottoman Empire
8) Tang China

That’s what I mean. They ruined their own domestic market and went on an unsustainable neoliberal course for the pockets of the few. It desperately needs social democracy.

China's stated goal was to switch to an economy driven by internal consumption. With a median age of almost 40 and a per capita GDP that needs to tripple to get them to the same level as the poorest "developed states" that seems unlikely.

People argue that this is no problem for China since they don't support pensioners as well as developed nations do. But even China sees it as a huge problem. Young Chinese will sacrifice consumption to care for their parents, this will suck up disposable income. Real income will decline.

On the flip side is the massive flight of Chinese elites out of China, and the flight of capital from China into Western real estate and corporations. Property rights are too fragile in China, particularly as it increases centralization and Xi's power, for the elite to feel fully comfortable there.

The final problem might be Xi himself. He seems fine now, but years in power, getting surrounded by yes men, and old age have turned plenty of energetic and competent rulers into disasters. Even if Xi doesn't follow this route, the next leader might. Ending term limits also gives ambitious CCP leaders more of an incentive to foment discord, as they can no longer "wait their turn."

As for oil traded yuan, it's pure propaganda unless China stops manipulating it's currency to keep exports low. The US dollar has had low and stable inflation for basically 30 years. The Fed hasn't even made it's inflation targets in about a decade. The value of the yuan meanwhile is changed as it benefits exports. Why would you want to hold that over Dollars or Euros?

As for power, China isn't competing against the US. They're competing against the US with South Korea, Japan (3rd largest economy and well over 100 million people), Vietnam, and to a lesser extent, India.

The China can call on much poorer, smaller allies.

Attached: 56322c41dd089538038b4625-1136-852.png (1136x852, 147K)