America will remain the worlds dominant superpower

Embarrassed? Far from it I'm afraid, I'm very glad you expanded in fact you have saved me the trouble. I do recognise that they are fighting the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, but what I found more interesting is that on the link you gave the overarching title of the matter is "Security Council Committee Perasuant to resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1989 (2011) concerning Al-Qaida and assosciated individuals and entities". I'm not going to patronise the readers as to who Al-Quida is, but as I'm sure you also know Al-Qaida is a terrorist organisation that the USA has been in wars against. I'm not here to debate about whether George Bush really had the intention of fighting these people or whether he had ulterior motives but the US has publically gone great lenths to fight these terrorists. In response to Con's argument that the USA is more of a militaristic nation than China, it may interest you to know that the USA has delegates leading 4 out of 16 peacekeeping missions across the globe with the United Nations (1). They are: Haiti Liberia Mali Cyprus That is 25% of missions, more than others countries and certainly far more than China. Then there is the case of the vast amounts of foregin aid the USA gives each year to other countries. A whopping 49,593.10 million dollars was given by the US (2) to other countries in help in 2011, over 1 billion of this was to China (3). Is that still not enough to change your mind about how "peace loving" China are in comparison? Well then, the many thousands of peaceful Buddhist monks living in Tibet would. They have been oppressive of the people living there, forcing them to hide their religious beliefs to conform with Chinese rule, does that sound fair? (4) Not a "military operation" you might argue. Well, I guess it's not a military operation in that they haven't exactly had to fight the bloodthirsty and savage monks that spend their days meditating and chanting, but they have been arming. (5) China has: Over 2,000,000 troops permanently stationed in Tibet 17 Secret Radar Stations 14 Military Airfields 8 Missile Base 8 ICBM's Just to name a few! Following the definition of a miltary operation as "Activity by a military or naval force" I would argue that this fits the bill quite nicely. I hope that has put an end to all possible confusion in this case. Moving onto the economic arguments put forward by Con, well noticed of my typo of billions as opposed to trillions, I apologise for this. As for the Maths you took the time to do I also apologise as I feel this was a waste of time on your behalf and I believe you misread what I meant to say, allow me to clarify. What I stated was one possible scenario that could happen, if you would care to check my source I stated in my first argument he explains the conditions through which he calculated it. There is unfortunately a degree of uncertainty when calculating such things as I'm sure you're aware, your own financial times source says it too! Read the 8th paragraph, it states that clouds may appear on China's horizon very soon, all things like this would have to be taken into consideration of course.However, I am intrigued by the fact that a number of your sources seem to disagree with the mathematical evidence you provide. Your sources [5] and [6] seem to claim that China has either already taken over the USA economically or will do very soon, 2016 even! I understand that these websites may be talking about PPP or other ways of measuring it but let's look at it in terms of GNP, the format that we both seem to value the most through our evidence.16 (the GDP of the US in trillions of dollars) * (1.03 [the 3% growth rate]^2 [the number of years until 2016]) = 16.97448 [the GDP of China in trillions of dollars] * (1.08)^2 = 9.33Well thats a shame, but you know what, with all these conflicting Western economists in the mix why don't we have a look at what a top CHINESE economist has to say on the matter.So I bring you Wang Jisi, Dean of a university in China and one of the countries top experts on international studies. I reccomend you read his essay (6) in which he quite boldly claims that America will be the ONLY superpower for the next 20 years at least, and note that this is saying the only superpower, not even going into the field of dominant superpower.I ask that you pay particular attention to the second point made by him that "America is on a Plateau". He makes an interesting set of points that America is no-where near reaching the limits of its power. He takes all matters into account such as the USA's huge remains of natural resources, its improving political system and even the bias of other top Chinese scholars arguing against America. The space given to me here is far too small unfortunately to explain all of Jisi's points but I reccomend to all who are reading this that they take the time to read the arguments he puts forwards. Before moving on I would like to look at one final quote from the scholar in which he says "China’s economic strength might surpass that of America in the next 10 years or so, but its comprehensive strength will still be far behind that of America." Take note of how he says "might", assuming that everything plays in China's favour, but more importantly I think he is correct in stating that its comprehensive strength will still be far behind in many other areas. You only have to look at my first two rounds of this debate to see that! China lacks in too many areas to take over the US.Before concluding I feel I must address Con's attacks on my claim that Britain and India were very good Allies. What I never claimed was that British Imperialism in India was an example of this, no, notice how I use the expression "MANY YEARS AFTER we first set foot there". This is of course a reference to World War 1. (7)I am in no way expressing that British Imperialism and cruel rule are what forms a friendship, not at all. And no doubt my opponent will bring up arguments like "They only helped because we made them" or "India only helped to prove it deserved independance". Both of these statements are likely true, but I am talking on a human level, not a ploitical scale, and am more impressed with the bonds formed between the people when the worst came to the worst in war. It seems to me from sources I have seen that racism was (not including against the Central powers!) was almost entirely excluded during the war and men worked together to achieve victory. A young Indian soldiers view of this is given in a letter he sent home during the War, (8), read the second source on the paper, don't get confused with the Ancient Egyptian source! To me this was a sign of the brotherhood formed in war and the coming together of men in times of need. Although the source also indicates that the British and Indian troops were apart, many of their activities and duties did mix the people.As for the 1942 affair, I believe once again this is an example of corrupt and unfair governments as opposed to the average people themselves. I recognise it was unncacceptable, but you must remember the Governmen was also burdened with defeat in World War 2 being imminent, a situation that would destroy most souls, and one that the USA and its Allies fortunately aren't in.To conclude, militarily neither country is perfect or peaceful, both are as bad as one another in this regard it could be argued. Secondly, if all goes perfectly they might take over the USA economically in the next 20 years, but they will NOT be the dominant even if this is so. (1) http://www.un.org...; (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org...; (4) http://www.bbc.co.uk...; (5) http://www.friendsoftibet.org...;(7) http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...(8)file:///C:/Users/harry/Downloads/HAT_SPECIMEN_TEST_PAPER_2012.pdf (If link fails see Oxford history 2012 past paper)