• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The fall of the US hegemony?

Herophant

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The fall of the US hegemony?

There can be no doubt that the US is the hegemonic power in the world now, but will they keep their position forever? Spain, the Netherlands and Britain have all lost their pre-eminent power as the leading state of the world.
What are your thoughts on the future of the USA? Will it keep is position as the leading state? How will USA be perceived in 50 years, as a bright beacon of freedom and a shining city on the hill or as a despotic suppressor state?
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Herophant said:
The fall of the US hegemony?

There can be no doubt that the US is the hegemonic power in the world now, but will they keep their position forever? Spain, the Netherlands and Britain have all lost their pre-eminent power as the leading state of the world.
What are your thoughts on the future of the USA? Will it keep is position as the leading state? How will USA be perceived in 50 years, as a bright beacon of freedom and a shining city on the hill or as a despotic suppressor state?
Heh, good luck with that one man. You are not going to get very many people here to actually want a serious intellectual conversation.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Herophant said:
The fall of the US hegemony?

There can be no doubt that the US is the hegemonic power in the world now, but will they keep their position forever? Spain, the Netherlands and Britain have all lost their pre-eminent power as the leading state of the world.
What are your thoughts on the future of the USA? Will it keep is position as the leading state? How will USA be perceived in 50 years, as a bright beacon of freedom and a shining city on the hill or as a despotic suppressor state?
But to consider your question, I don't know how the US will be considered. I know how Americans see themselves. As this savior for freedom. But every leading state that committed terrible attrocities always saw themselves as the good guys and as a liberating force.
 

Herophant

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well I am new to this forum so I wouldn’t know...

Personably I think it’s an interesting question, how long will American dominance last, and how will history view it?

Btw is there any way of moving this thread to the International Politics board, I think it would be more fitting there.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Herophant said:
Well I am new to this forum so I wouldn’t know...

Personably I think it’s an interesting question, how long will American dominance last, and how will history view it?

Btw is there any way of moving this thread to the International Politics board, I think it would be more fitting there.
I think this should be in US Politics. When nationalism is turned on, like it is on this message board, logic and reasoning go out the window. Do you think the US will be viewed in much the same way as Imperial Britian?
 

Quid Pro Quo

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
196
Reaction score
0
Location
Fort Riley, KS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
In terms of a dominant "force" in the world, I think within the next 10-20 years it will be China at the top of the list, with the US a close second, followed by Mexico. (Alright, not really Mexico).

The factor in this is Economics. China is booming much like America did in the late 1800's through the 1900's...and we're going to see a world political shift towards China's position.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
quid pro quo is on the right track. China, with its huge population of unrequited consumers, has the potential to be the next world super power. China is of course, already a 'superpower', but I mean the superpower, eclipsing even the US.

Whether or not China succeeds in displacing the US in that position depends a lot on continued liberalization of Chinese politics and a continued shift to market capitalism. But having had a taste of success, it seems unlikely that they will reverse course now.

Globalization is the great leveler. If you haven't already, read Thomas Friedman's book, "The World is Flat". Very thoughtful, lots of insight.
 

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
4,950
Reaction score
937
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That you could hope for is a more democratic worldorder instead of todays worldorder there cash and guns are kings. Already we have a development of more countries getting democratic, that could lead to that the worldorder get more democratic. The problem is with democratic state land unions like USA and EU that think that democracy is fine inside there country. While at the same time for running the world they seem to forget that alot and instead think it's better that they run the show. Something that more and more countries get more legitimate to fight against then they became democratic.

Then you have the problem with growing China that isn't a democratic countries that is also learning the USA and EU way to the run the world. Then you also got the problem in the struggle for dominance they useally allies themself with the bad and really bad ones while EU and USA allied themself with the good and the bad.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
TimmyBoy said:
I think this should be in US Politics. When nationalism is turned on, like it is on this message board, logic and reasoning go out the window. Do you think the US will be viewed in much the same way as Imperial Britian?
I don't think it has anything to do with nationalism. Just as it doesn't have anything to do with your utter and complete contempt for the US.

To answer the original question though. I think there are a number of differences between the US and those that you mentioned. The US is not looking to expand it's territory or land rights accross the globe. Contrary to what some people will say. Having a millitary base does not constitute possesion or occupation in other nations. We don't make the right choices or decisions all the time. I don't think you will fiind anyone on this board that thinks the US has been perfect in it's foreign policy. But I think we as a nation are aimed more towards allowing or helping others to guide themselves, as oppossed to occupying and conquering nations for expansion. The same people that despise the US such as Timmy, will always despise it. They will always look to it's faults and misteps, as posed to anything good that may come from our actions.
 

galenrox

ROCK AND ROLL MASTER
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,571
Reaction score
38
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Calm2Chaos said:
I don't think it has anything to do with nationalism. Just as it doesn't have anything to do with your utter and complete contempt for the US.
Which raises the question why is there such universal contempt for us? What have we done that has made us lose our almost universal love and respect?

The US falling at some point in the relatively not far off future wouldn't be unheard of.
In the 6 party talks with North Korea, recently for the first time the US doesn't hold the most power. The way is has worked is China would put forward a proposal, and typically the US rejected it. Recently China put forward a proposal (one similar to the one that President Clinton put forward at one point), and we rejected it. Then China said it was the last proposal, and we could either take it or leave it. And so we took it.
Now if you think about this beyond face value, what's happened is our declining support throughout the world has led us to the point where China could bully us into supporting a proposal that we did not support based solely on the merit of the proposal. Our unquestioned power over China is no longer unquestioned.
China has a larger army, and it won't be long till they have a more powerful army. And it won't be relatively long until they have a more powerful economy, and our $140 billion trade defecit with them ALONE is definately helping their cause.
The thing is they know we couldn't take on the whole world without killing ourselves too, and it's pretty much universal consensus that we're not crazy enough to end human life as we know it. So thus, because of MAD (mutually assured destruction) our nukes are for all practical purposes nonpoints, and thus we have to consider the other aspects of our military, which don't even compare to China's, let alone the rest of the world.
So without wholeheartedly supportive allies, we cannot maintain our power, and that support is something that has been taken for granted as of late.
To answer the original question though. I think there are a number of differences between the US and those that you mentioned. The US is not looking to expand it's territory or land rights accross the globe. Contrary to what some people will say. Having a millitary base does not constitute possesion or occupation in other nations. We don't make the right choices or decisions all the time. I don't think you will fiind anyone on this board that thinks the US has been perfect in it's foreign policy. But I think we as a nation are aimed more towards allowing or helping others to guide themselves, as oppossed to occupying and conquering nations for expansion. The same people that despise the US such as Timmy, will always despise it. They will always look to it's faults and misteps, as posed to anything good that may come from our actions.
I agree, except for the last part. There are some people that will despise us regardless, and thus there's no point in trying to get them to like us. But then there are allies who 30 or 40 years ago would've gone with us wherever who didn't get behind us for Iraq. Keep in mind that traditionally Europe has been an undying ally (namely because we keep saving their asses), and now there we have England (although domestically their support of the US seems to be very unpopular), and some support from Spain and Italy (I think), and worldwide the only nation that will support us to the end of the earth is a nation with no real military to speak of, Japan.
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Don't forget also that now that Shroeder is out of the picture in Germany, the newly elected female President of the Christian Democrat Party has said she wanted to improve ties with us. So I suspect Germany will become a strong ally of ours in the years to come.
 

Herophant

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
TimmyBoy said:
I think this should be in US Politics. When nationalism is turned on, like it is on this message board, logic and reasoning go out the window. Do you think the US will be viewed in much the same way as Imperial Britian?
Basicly yes, will elaborate later.

Calm2Chaos said:
I don't think it has anything to do with nationalism. Just as it doesn't have anything to do with your utter and complete contempt for the US.

To answer the original question though. I think there are a number of differences between the US and those that you mentioned. The US is not looking to expand it's territory or land rights accross the globe. Contrary to what some people will say. Having a millitary base does not constitute possesion or occupation in other nations. We don't make the right choices or decisions all the time. I don't think you will fiind anyone on this board that thinks the US has been perfect in it's foreign policy. But I think we as a nation are aimed more towards allowing or helping others to guide themselves, as oppossed to occupying and conquering nations for expansion. The same people that despise the US such as Timmy, will always despise it. They will always look to it's faults and misteps, as posed to anything good that may come from our actions.
Knutsen Torbjørn L (1999) "The rise and fall of world orders" Manchester University Press
 

Herophant

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gandhi>Bush said:
Moved to International Politics by request.
Many thanks!

Love your sign by the way…
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
George_Washington said:
Don't forget also that now that Shroeder is out of the picture in Germany, the newly elected female President of the Christian Democrat Party has said she wanted to improve ties with us. So I suspect Germany will become a strong ally of ours in the years to come.
Good luck, she has basically no majority and no power. Shroeder is not out of the picture, she can't pass any policies without him.

The decline of support of the US isn't because Europe is a "lefty" which is what I'm hearing from the Americans alot because of the Iraq War.

Europe used to see the US has the holder of nations, the glue of international law, a nation what will stop the world from destroying itself. But when we see the US use is vastly superior power, to bully, to break laws with impunity, to invade countries for their own gain - we don't really like that.

Absolute power corrupts absolutly.

As for in 50 years time, China will be the big dog in the world, not the US. Interesting time.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Quote by Calm2Chaos: But I think we as a nation are aimed more towards allowing or helping others to guide themselves, as oppossed to occupying and conquering nations for expansion. The same people that despise the US such as Timmy, will always despise it. They will always look to it's faults and misteps, as posed to anything good that may come from our actions.
No nation is like that. Every nation performs solely for its own interests. The only reason that we end up helping others at times in the process (I.e. germany and japan) is because globalization allows mutual development. We are aimed towards helping others as long as it helps us. And usually the national benefits outway the costs.

As to the US hegemony falling, that is inevitable. globalization is leveling the playing field, and the US can no longer be number 1.
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
But when we see the US use is vastly superior power, to bully, to break laws with impunity, to invade countries for their own gain - we don't really like that.
When the US starts doing that - let us know.
 

Brigand

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
207
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
M14 Shooter said:
When the US starts doing that - let us know.
Actually, when you shift your attention, momentarily, from the sights of your assault weapon, you may catch a glimspe of it.
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Brigand said:
Actually, when you shift your attention, momentarily, from the sights of your assault weapon, you may catch a glimspe of it.
Really.
So, what, exactly, have we "gained" or did we intend to "gain" by going to war in Iraq?
 

Herophant

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
M14 Shooter said:
Really.
So, what, exactly, have we "gained" or did we intend to "gain" by going to war in Iraq?
Regardless of the American motives, I would argue that the fact that they are questioned to such a large degree is an indication of American problems.
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Herophant said:
Regardless of the American motives, I would argue that the fact that they are questioned to such a large degree is an indication of American problems.

The argument revolves around the US acting for it "own gain":

But when we see the US use is vastly superior power, to bully, to break laws with impunity, to invade countries for their own gain

If you can't show the "gain" that was imagined, intended or realized, the argument is negated.
 

Herophant

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
M14 Shooter said:
The argument revolves around the US acting for it "own gain":

But when we see the US use is vastly superior power, to bully, to break laws with impunity, to invade countries for their own gain

If you can't show the "gain" that was imagined, intended or realized, the argument is negated.

This thread is about the world order and the role of the USA in it in the future.

It’s not about the Iraq war; please make another thread if you want to argue that question.
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Herophant said:
This thread is about the world order and the role of the USA in it in the future.
It’s not about the Iraq war; please make another thread if you want to argue that question.
Dont tell ME, tell the guy that made the argument.
-I- was resoponding to him.

Having said that, the comment I responded to is directly related to the future rol of the US, referring spefcifically to the support the US may or may not get from her allies, and if not, why not.
 

Brigand

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
207
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
M14 Shooter said:
Really.
So, what, exactly, have we "gained" or did we intend to "gain" by going to war in Iraq?
Establishing a US strategic substratum in the middle east.
Securing Iraq's energy resources.
It's a long-time foreseen goal of the US, since 19 how-long. There is really, nothing surprising about any of this.

The cusp of your retort was, that you fail to see the US doing doing any of the stuff you quoted and commented on...I don't see how you can't quite see it.
 
Top Bottom