American Superiority is Good for the World

Manic Moran · 26-11-2007 6:42pm

Hey, I said you might need the help of one, not that one actually existed!

Though in terms of reality, yes, the US is about the only choice, you just need to convince it that it's in its own interests to help you out.

NTM

edanto · 27-11-2007 1:50am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Though in terms of reality, yes, the US is about the only choice, you just need to convince it that it's in its own interests to help you out.
NTM

Which I would translate as meaning 'make money for people in corporations such as the Carlyle Group or Halliburton' (sp). Or satisfy a particularly influential lobby such as the Jewish in pursuing the prolonged destruction of the Palestinian state. I'm as pro-semetic as the next man, but I wish I understood how the treatment of the Palestinians is justified in terms of the ideals aspired to in the US constitution.

On the comments above about the economic efforts that can be brought to bear on a country - Naomi Klein shows some of the tricks of the trade in her new book The Shock Doctrine.

Another book I've heard of was written by a former NSA advisor to President Carter, called Zbigniew Brzezinski. Here's an extract:

The basic requirements of global leadership are now vastly different from what they were during the British empire. No longer is military power, reinforced by economis prowess and exercised by a superior elite pursuing a sophisticated strategy, sufficient to sustain imperial domination. In the past, power to control exceeded power to destroy. It took less effort and cost to govern a million people than to kill a million people.

Today, the opposite is true: power to destroy exceeds the power to control. And the means of destruction are becoming more accessible to both actors, both states and political movements. Consequently, with absolute security for a few (notably America itself) becoming only relative security for all, collectve vulnerability puts a premium on intelligent, cooperative governance, reinforced by power that is viewed as legitimate. Global leadership now must be accompanied by a social consciousness, a readiness to compromise regarding some aspects of one's own soveriegnty, a cultural appeal with more than just hedonistic content.

What does all that mean for America? Well, all in all, I think the US has the capacity, just not the desire at the moment (or the leaders), to be a benevolent world superpower. In contrast, I'm not too excited at the idea of the Chinese becoming dominant, I saw in Ibid's sig the other day that over 3,000 people were executed last year in China. On the assumption that many of them were anti-establishment campaigners, that scares me.

27-11-2007 1:09pm

Very interesting thread(I can feel this taking time away from work to keep tabs on it). Has history not thought us anything? Monopolising world powers have been overthrown again & again all the way down the centuries. I know people could easily respond with the easy reply by saying that it is a totally different age and America are too strong to ever go into the shadows but I feel that is not true. I have a really bad feeling about the next 5-10 years because America have really pushed the world too far.

For those of you who think that America have done a good job in the last 50 years you are quite simply WRONG. They have ruined countless countries, regions and cultures with their ''constructive democratic policy''. I read alot of history, modern and not so modern. Some of the stuff I have read has been absolutely appalling in America's ''golden period''. Read some books about what they did to countries like Somalia in North Africa and you might just change your mind. The jist is the typical American approach of lending weapons/money to people who they knew couldn't pay it back to tackle a communist uprise(You guessed it, backed by the Soviets) in the country. Somalia are doing wonderfully now eh?(think of America every time you see a Concern advert)It makes me laugh at the amount of racsist Americans who smear black people for coming over to their country for a new life when America were the ones that ruined their previous one. I could list so many countries Vietnam, Cuba , Iraq, Paraguay etc. The list of countries and lives ruined is endless.

Then the corruption within the country itself is laughable. There are so many back handers with the drug lords in South America(yes the ones they are supposed to be stopping) its pathethic .America is generally a corupt country from the spine down under every leader they instate. The world is finally starting to open their eyes and see it.

Someone commented about China being the ''Superpower'' in the next 50 years and I honestly believe this is the sad road we are going down. Can you imagine a country like China ''running'' the world? (scary thought eh?) With their basic human rights issues and their medievil law system.

The United Nations should be a stronger organisation and they should be the world power not one country by itself. There should be a collective thinking before countries get invaded to stop a dictator ,to stop the country developing nuclear weapons etc.

One final note to the people who ''love'' America -

Read into the last 50 years before you sings praises about it. Remember the winners write the history while the losers only sing the songs so read stuff that is independent and not biast. Saying America is doing a great job is an actual f**king insult to some people so please think about touchy subjects before writing about them.

ps ~ I am an Irish Catholic living in Dublin just so people know I am not from one of the countries America ruined & am biast.

Kaiser_Sma · 27-11-2007 4:28pm

World power monopolies generally do die out, but it doesn't mean they will, and theres no particular formula for predicting it. World power ebbs and flows much like economys, modern ones are more due to oppertunity then to generational intent.
But it's not fair or right for the americans to be the current power is it? But would it be any worse if any other country where in the same position? impossible to say.

If the world was composed of many smaller european sized states with a relativly equal amount of power, the world could well be even bloodier. Multiple nationalist identites would arise, and the most nations would be so much closer to the upper hand that they would almost definetly strive for it.

Orginisations like the UN only operate now because of the security (not to mention 25% of the funding) that america provides.

The idealist proxy wars during the cold war and now in the war of terror are bloody, cyclical and in some cases under published, but when the US looses it's power base it could be a re run of when the old european powers began to crumble. The dieing empires become more violent and it's old dominions destory themselves in the confusion of self determination.

Possibly anyway.

History should be judged contextually, but if we were to take a lesson from it, it's probably that this is as good as it gets for a while.

djpbarry · 27-11-2007 4:56pm

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

But it's not fair or right for the americans to be the current power is it? But would it be any worse if any other country where in the same position? impossible to say.

An awful lot of "what if's" in this thread. Whether or not any other country would do any better in the US' position is pure speculation and is irrelevant in the context of this argument.

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

If the world was composed of many smaller european sized states with a relativly equal amount of power, the world could well be even bloodier.

I think this is unlikely. First of all, there are conflicts in recent history that had their roots in different peoples being amalgamated into a single larger nation by colonial powers, e.g. Yugoslavia, India prior to partition.

Secondly, look at modern Europe. Europe is comprised of "smaller, European sized-states" and, in the EU at least, there have been no military conflicts since WWII.

If two nations have a "relatively equal amount of power", it would be unlikely that they would be prepared to risk military conflict, as it would be hugely detrimental to both sides.

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

Orginisations like the UN only operate now because of the security (not to mention 25% of the funding) that america provides.

I would say the UN operates in spite of the US, who, in recent years at least, have demonstrated nothing but contempt for the organisation. The US currently owes the UN something in the region of $1.3 billion in unpaid dues.

Mr.Micro · 27-11-2007 5:19pm

Realistically countries of equal military power and including nuclear weapons will not go against each other for fear of a war,that was the whole idea of nuclear deterrents .In the future the nuclear scenario will be enacted only once,as we all know that will be end game. China as a superpower in the future under the current type of regime is a real threat in that it is still mired in the Marxist type philosophy and it will take more than rhetorical threats or sanctions to curtail its ambitions .

The Fracturing of the former USSR was the reason that the US acquired the role of the only superpower at present .With regard to the UN , in my opinion ,as I have said before, is a toothless ,undemocratic club that does nothing or fails to stand up to its permanent members when it needs to keep them in line,effectively to be used and abused as the situation prescribes .

27-11-2007 5:46pm

Surely Europe is a perfect example of what a group of states can do peacefully.

Manic Moran · 27-11-2007 11:29pm

KaG1888 wrote: »

. The jist is the typical American approach of lending weapons/money to people who they knew couldn't pay it back to tackle a communist uprise(You guessed it, backed by the Soviets) in the country. Somalia are doing wonderfully now eh? Then the corruption within the country itself is laughable.

Secondly, look at modern Europe. Europe is comprised of "smaller, European sized-states" and, in the EU at least, there have been no military conflicts since WWII.

If two nations have a "relatively equal amount of power", it would be unlikely that they would be prepared to risk military conflict, as it would be hugely detrimental to both sides.

I'll wager a good part of the reason that there have been no major military conflicts since WWII (I guess the Cod War counts as a minor one, and there's always Cyprus) is the fact the all the EU countries were members of larger organisations (NATO/WarPac), underpinned by the respective superpower of that side. I note the difference between KaG and djp in that KaG acknowledges that American interference was really directed by proxy towards the Soviets: Two relatively equally powerful forces who were not all that unenthused about the occasional military conflict. You're just going to have an issue of scale as to where that conflict will be.

The US currently owes the UN something in the region of $1.3 billion in unpaid dues.

Much of this dates back to the 1990s when the US was presented with a 'bill' to the tune of 27% of the UN's budget. They capped themselves at 25%. I don't think it's unreasonable not to have to pay over a quarter of the funding of a 180 (Or however many at the time) member organisation. The UN has since lowered the cap itself to 22%. However, a $1.3bn shortfall isn't much in the scheme of American funding:

http://coburn.senate.gov/ffm/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=4d8e1af8-452e-4030-bd5a-6e0bdf9fbedb
The US gave over $5bn to the UN in 2005, $4bn in 2004.

Considering that Ireland pays less than $10m a year, I don't think the average Irishman is in that great a position to complain, even on a per capita basis.

Surely Europe is a perfect example of what a group of states can do peacefully.

Under whose military shield?

NTM

eoin5 · 28-11-2007 3:24am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Under whose military shield?

NTM

Is there some implication here? At a guess id say... China, or maybe Mars

djpbarry · 28-11-2007 1:16pm

KaG1888 wrote: »

Surely Europe is a perfect example of what a group of states can do peacefully.

Not perfect exactly, but I would agree that the EU is by and large a good thing.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'll wager a good part of the reason that there have been no major military conflicts since WWII (I guess the Cod War counts as a minor one, and there's always Cyprus) is the fact the all the EU countries were members of larger organisations (NATO/WarPac), underpinned by the respective superpower of that side.

Possibly, but I would regard that as rather dismissive of the efforts of individuals such as Robert Schuman. I would argue that one of the principal motivations behind the formation of the EU was to take Europe "out of the shadow" of the two existing superpowers post WWII. Not only that, but the foundation of the European Coal and Steel Community (precursor to the EU) limited any one nations control over these important resources, which were fundamental to war industries.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Two relatively equally powerful forces who were not all that unenthused about the occasional military conflict.

The occasional military conflict on foreign soil. Convenient that.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't think it's unreasonable not to have to pay over a quarter of the funding of a 180 (Or however many at the time) member organisation.

The average American pays about $1.40 per annum towards the UN's regular budget, about the same as the average Irish person ($1.41), and considerably less than the average Japanese person ($2.61), German ($1.80) or French person ($1.61), among others.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Under whose military shield?

Please... :rolleyes:

What military threats were posed to Western Europe post WWII?

28-11-2007 1:34pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Not perfect exactly, but I would agree that the EU is by and large a good thing.

Possibly, but I would regard that as rather dismissive of the efforts of individuals such as Robert Schuman. I would argue that one of the principal motivations behind the formation of the EU was to take Europe "out of the shadow" of the two existing superpowers post WWII. Not only that, but the foundation of the European Coal and Steel Community (precursor to the EU) limited any one nations control over these important resources, which were fundamental to war industries.

The occasional military conflict on foreign soil. Convenient that.

The average American pays about $1.40 per annum towards the UN's regular budget, about the same as the average Irish person ($1.41), and considerably less than the average Japanese person ($2.61), German ($1.80) or French person ($1.61), among others.

Please... :rolleyes:

What military threats were posed to Western Europe post WWII?

Good reply DjpBarry, my comment wasn't meant to be a totally true statement but an example of how a group of states can work together in peace.

Liam Byrne · 28-11-2007 5:21pm

I've got an issue with this thread title - it grates on me every time I see it, because it's masquerading as a fact.

Any chance of changing it to "Is American Superiority is good for the world ?" ?

Having one all-powerful force is fine in theory, if that all-powerful force has no vested interests or agendas and is fair and balanced.

Likewise, the force should be democratically elected, thereby making their decisions reflect and answerable to all people affected.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't get the chance to vote Bush & the neocons out or in, so therefore they should have no authority or right to impose their views on anyone other than the U.S.

While Bush might think he's some sort of world president, and American movies might represent America as the saviour of the world (from "Flight 93" to "Independence Day"), the fact is that he's not; I have no obligation to bow to his wishes or his force (which is just as well, because at this stage he represents everything that I detest).

Sure even OUR Taoiseach is paid more than him, for feck's sake!

Mr.Micro · 28-11-2007 5:30pm

Having one all-powerful force is fine in theory, if that all-powerful force has no vested interests or agendas and is fair and balanced. Quote Liam Byrne

We all know that it is not fair or balanced "he who pays the piper calls the tune".Some few years ago when the UN was not rolling over enough for Bush he threatened to pull its Budget .

Red Hand · 28-11-2007 6:06pm

People say the same thing of the British Empire, that it was a force for good. And yet, though the BE was the biggest, richest and most powerful in history, and helped spread democracy about the world, it failed to help Ireland during the famine. Morals and democracy are all very well, but money comes first.

So no, I wouldn't agree with the OP. Money comes first.

Manic Moran · 28-11-2007 7:12pm

djpbarry wrote: »

The occasional military conflict on foreign soil. Convenient that.

But not irrelevant to the topic at hand. If American interference in places like South America and Asia are going to be touted as examples of where America has been bad for the world, it has to be taken in the context that it was primarily focused against an equivalent power. Where there no threat of expansion of Moscow's sphere of influence (You can make your own arguments about if that is good or bad in itself), there would likely have been a lot less interference.

The average American pays about $1.40 per annum towards the UN's regular budget, about the same as the average Irish person ($1.41), and considerably less than the average Japanese person ($2.61), German ($1.80) or French person ($1.61), among others.

What are the respective total payments to the UN, not just the regular operating budget? The US works out as $16.60 per year per capita on 2005 figures.

Please... :rolleyes:

What military threats were posed to Western Europe post WWII?

Umm.. Eastern Europe?

Even if one consideres that US actions post-WWII in Western Europe were motivated out of self-interest, there is little dispute that they tended to be beneficial to Western European nations. After having done a pretty reasonable job of destroying themselves, without the economic jump-start provided by the Marshall Plan, would the EU be as prosperous as it is now. Could it even have been formed given the situations of the countries at the time? With the aid of US military assistance in NATO, defense budgets could be smaller, allowing more to be diverted to economic purposes, also contributing to their prosperity, and prosperous countries are less likely to fight. The fact that European countries appeared to be unable to deal with even a second-rate military problem like Yugoslavia without US assistance cannot go un-noticed, there little doubt that Western European nations took US military assistance as a given, and for granted.

NTM

Mr.Micro · 29-11-2007 12:08pm

Well we must not forget America s disastrous War in Vietnam and all the thousands killed US and Vietnamese ,all for what?As for Europe as sorting out the former Yugoslavia .It was only with the breakup of the USSR and the changing times that allowed action to be taken .Once again any US involvement would be low risk to the US ,as the USA is thousands of miles away .The Europeans are more cautious as its on our doorstep and particularly as 2 world wars in Europe started for a lot less .

Kev_ps3 · 29-11-2007 2:57pm

Just a question to the OP, what exactly do you mean by "the world"? There are alot of people on this planet that would strongly disagree with your title!
It grand for us living in the west to say that the US is great, they are a positive force for Ireland. Many countrys are abused by the US for their own gain.
How you can say the US is good for the world when all they seem to be doing is invading and bombing counrtys for the past century is beyond me. Its clear to me that American superiority is a bad thing for the world, and the sooner it ends the better.

djpbarry · 29-11-2007 6:44pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Where there no threat of expansion of Moscow's sphere of influence (You can make your own arguments about if that is good or bad in itself), there would likely have been a lot less interference.

Less, maybe, but not a lot less. The "war against communism" was used as an excuse in the same way the "war on terror" is today.

Manic Moran wrote: »

After having done a pretty reasonable job of destroying themselves, without the economic jump-start provided by the Marshall Plan, would the EU be as prosperous as it is now.

So the assistance provided by the US to Europe post WWII outweighs the destruction caused in other parts of the world?

Manic Moran wrote: »

...prosperous countries are less likely to fight.

So how prosperous does the US have to become before they leave everyone alone?

Manic Moran wrote: »

The fact that European countries appeared to be unable to deal with even a second-rate military problem like Yugoslavia without US assistance cannot go un-noticed

But it was not the responsibility of European countries to "deal with" this conflict - the UN was established for a reason.

Kev_ps3 · 30-11-2007 11:18am

...prosperous countries are less likely to fight.

Sheer comedy!

Manic Moran · 30-11-2007 6:25pm

djpbarry wrote: »

So the assistance provided by the US to Europe post WWII outweighs the destruction caused in other parts of the world?

No, but it's a factor to be taken in the overall balance. Further, if people are going to be putting forward the EU's success at not having any wars recently as an argument of what could be achieved, I think that has to be taken in the entire context of how it got there in the first place.

So how prosperous does the US have to become before they leave everyone alone?

Depends on what it presumes to be a threat, I guess.

But it was not the responsibility of European countries to "deal with" this conflict - the UN was established for a reason.

The EU disagreed with this concept both at the time and now, and did get involved in the Balkans before the US did. My dear auld dad was sent there back in 91 wearing EU blue and white. The catch was that it was a non-military force, which proved singularly useless. Even now that the UN SFOR mission is over, there's a EUFOR force in the Balkans.

Sheer comedy!

It's also true. Wars are often fought over resources or over national pride. If it's over resources, there's your economic reason right there. Wars over national pride, such as the Falklands, are frequently fought as a distraction from domestic unrest.

NTM

djpbarry · 01-12-2007 5:46pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Depends on what it presumes to be a threat, I guess.

And therein lies the problem. Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama, Nicaragua, etc. could not possibly be considered a threat to the US.

Akrasia · 01-12-2007 6:07pm

djpbarry wrote: »

And therein lies the problem. Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama, Nicaragua, etc. could not possibly be considered a threat to the US.

They're a threat to U.S. hegemony.

The domino theory applies more than just to communism, it applies to any country that might try and assert independence and disobey U.S. direction. If one or two countries are allowed to get away with it, then others might follow.

Invading and destroying these tiny countries is the equivilent of sticking a traitors head on a pole outside the town gates.

SpAcEd OuT · 03-12-2007 4:59pm

Akrasia wrote: »

They're a threat to U.S. hegemony.

The domino theory applies more than just to communism, it applies to any country that might try and assert independence and disobey U.S. direction. If one or two countries are allowed to get away with it, then others might follow.

Invading and destroying these tiny countries is the equivilent of sticking a traitors head on a pole outside the town gates.

Exactly it ensures that potential threats to the world order know their place thus ensuring stability.

KERPAL · 31-05-2008 12:51am

Just came across this legendary thread.
OP thank you for being so inciteful and finally speaking the mind on behalf of the right type of person in Ireland.

American Superiority is great for the world. We would be ****ed without it, falling victim to the muslimisation and socialisation of our shores.
Thank America for your wealth, thank them for your safety, thank them for your freedom.

kaiser sauze · 31-05-2008 1:26am

KERPAL wrote: »

Just came across this legendary thread.
OP thank you for being so inciteful and finally speaking the mind on behalf of the right type of person in Ireland.

American Superiority is great for the world. We would be ****ed without it, falling victim to the muslimisation and socialisation of our shores.
Thank America for your wealth, thank them for your safety, thank them for your freedom.

Wow!

Racism, mass sweeping generalisations, misinformation, misinformed opinion and stupidity all in one neat, short package

Well done, you win today's Golden Raspberry.

KERPAL · 31-05-2008 1:39am

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Wow!

Racism, mass sweeping generalisations, misinformation, misinformed opinion and stupidity all in one neat, short package

Well done, you win today's Golden Raspberry.

Racism?Generalisations?Misinformation?Stupidity?

FAIL

kaiser sauze · 31-05-2008 1:52am

KERPAL wrote: »

FAIL

What yardstick did you measure my fail from?

Manic Moran · 31-05-2008 3:04am

kaiser sauze wrote: »

What yardstick did you measure my fail from?

Jesus, satire just passes you right by, doesn't it?

NTM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 31-05-2008 11:45am

i don't think that was satire.. i think that was just.. kerpal

wes · 31-05-2008 12:25pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Jesus, satire just passes you right by, doesn't it?

Its the Internet, there are people who will swear blind the earth is flat. So unless someone uses a smiley, its hard to know whether there taking the piss or not.

American Superiority is Good for the World

Comments