End of the usa

[Devil 0]

Don't get me wrong, I love the US, but does anyone ever think about how it will (I assume) eventually die or fade away? I mean, any empire or world power has contemporaneously looked unbeatable, but they've always fallen. Someday America might fall too...

Nuclear holocaust isn't a real creative answer for the purposes of this discusion, but I guess it's a strong possibilitity. I'd like to hope we don't take the world with us, to be honest.

[Milkman 1]

We will let somome else be the world's police, or maybe we won't need anyone to that after we are done with our role as the world's superpower. Maybe there will be no need for "superpowers" but I doubt I will live to see that day.

[edc 0]

While it may eventually happen, I somewhat doubt it because:

A-There are very few people in the US that don't love the US unlike former large countries.

B-There are very few countries in the world that are real enemies of the United States, and of those, while they may be threats, none could totally destroy the US.

C-The constitution has worked pretty d*mn well for over 200 years.

PS: Sgt. Milkman, that quote in your sig is hilarious

[Devil 0]

While the constitution may seem to work well, try and recall the hundreds of ammendments and changes that have been done to it. While in America we do that, in other countries people have a revolution.

[Milkman 1]

@ edc: It's great, isn't it.

I believe the government has too good of a law enforcment system and too good of internal affairs to every worry about a revolution. I think we will slowly downsize, but remain a key player in the world's affairs.

[Major Gripe 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I believe the government has too good of a law enforcment system and too good of internal affairs to every worry about a revolution. I think we will slowly downsize, but remain a key player in the world's affairs.<span id='postcolor'>

A good law enforcement is by no means the key factor in a revolutionary situation. Look at Tsarist Russia, it had an excellent secret police, the Cheka, but the combination of weak government, strong opposition, public discord, economic problems.....etc, all combined together to put Comrade Lenin in power!

The only way the US can go in its role in international relations is down. It is the pinnacle and most of the pyramid of world diplomacy. However I don't think that the US will ever relinquish this position as it is so beneficial both economically and politically, and for the simple fact that no other country is capable of or wants to be the worlds policeman.

I believe that the age of empires falling has ended, international relations even now are far less fraught than they ever have been and the US as edc said has no natural enemies capable of destroying her.

Having said that Vive la Revolution!!

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Devil @ 22 May 2003,00:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">While the constitution may seem to work well, try and recall the hundreds of ammendments and changes that have been done to it. While in America we do that, in other countries people have a revolution.<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly, it is flexible

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Gripe @ 22 May 2003,02:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A good law enforcement is by no means the key factor in a revolutionary situation. Look at Tsarist Russia, it had an excellent secret police, the Cheka, but the combination of weak government, strong opposition, public discord, economic problems.....etc, all combined together to put Comrade Lenin in power!<span id='postcolor'>

Cheka (actually ChK or "Cherezvychainy Komitet" or emergency committee) was established after the October revolution and was a direct predecessor to NKVD and subsequently KGB.

As for the actual secret police under tsar, it was reasonably effective intellegence-gathering organization but totally ineffectual from the point of view of enforcement and prevention. Most of the then-revolutionaries got away with a slap on the wrist even when they were directly implicated in criminal activities.

[Major Fubar 0]

It's not IF, it's WHEN...no empire can last forever. If you asked a Roman if the Roman Empire would ever fall, they would have laughed at you.

My advice, keep an eye on China or India as the future superpower.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

I think it will have to happen. Might not happen for another hundred years or more, but I still think there will be a time when the USA isn't the top dog, or they are the only dog.

History has proven that great states only last so long. The Babylonians, Khengis Khans empire, The Romans, The British, The Germans, The USSR. They have all been great but are now gone or only a whisper of what they once were. It can happen very quickly too.

All it would take for the USA to go would be one bad president. Could happen for multiple reasons. Could start another civil war. There is such a diverse culture and so many people who don't like African Americans and people who don't like the whites and so forth. Another possibility is America really annoys the world and pisses off most of the world to a degree that the US is totally shut off or a war insues in which America will either be taken down, or it will rule the world.

[sanctuary 19]

Actually , because of the rap-techno-rave and other stupid things ( ) proliferation , usa is living his last century.

Beware the day where you will find only those awfull musics , because you wil not have a defense against them anymore !!!

[John C Flett 0]

I think bad leadership is one of the key factors in the decline of any culture and the US has been lumbered with a leader many people would desribe as very bad.

Secondly, economy is an issue and the US has serious problems wich are likely to get worse to due to greed and short-sightedness.

Lastly, large sections of the population are disenfranchised either as a result of their race, economic status or lack of education.

All these things could easily bring down even the mighty US. All these things could be delt with by strong, capable leaders. It could go either way but as an outside observer I don't see much hope of the bad trends being reversed anytime soon.

[DarkLight 0]

Every superpower dies, just look at history, history always repeats itself. And it will probable repeat itself once again. Maybe i'll live to see it, maybe it won't happen in the next centuries...

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

All things pass.

Major Gripe-i agree with half your post but not:

Quote[/b] ]"However I don't think that the US will ever relinquish this position as it is so beneficial both economically and politically, and for the simple fact that no other country is capable of or wants to be the worlds policeman.I believe that the age of empires falling has ended, "

for a start 'ever' is a long time

I agree that Americans will always be reluctant to relinquish such a role just like previous superpowers have been.

Who is to say though that for instance having a vast military industrial complex with massive deployments abroad will always prove to be economically viable or beneficial?

Who is to say that in the future Americans might see 'being the worlds policeman' as a political turn off (as is already the case to some extent)?

If you look at economies alone then there are plenty of future threats to American dominance. So what is it that makes sure that Americans will for 'ever' want to ,or be able to keep a super(or hyper)power status?

Be sure it is not the same thing that made Greeks, Romans, Mongols, Ottomans, Russians, French, Spanish, British ,Germans of the Third Reich etc etc etc sure that theirs was the reign that would last for ever.

Everything 'falls' in the end its just a question of time and there are different ways for an empire or superpower to fall. The British Empire was not defeated militarily. It just became overwhelmed by circumstance, starting lagging economically ,looked outdated and lost support. With the current US administrations careless behaviour in foreign relations the same could easily start to happen again.

It is becoming highly unpopular in many places to have US troops stationed (more unpopular that it has been for decades).

Quote[/b] ] "international relations even now are far less fraught than they ever have been"

You obviously werent around in the mid nineties when some people were confident that 'history has ended'

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

In fact this crisis in the Congo could prove to be a test.

If the EU does act (FAR from certain) and America doesnt (or only minimally) it would cause people to question if America is indeed the worlds policeman. If America acts increasingly in its own national interest or security alone (as i believe TBA and many americans would like) and other organisations such as the EU ,UN or whoever act in the interests or world security then presumably America will have de facto handed over this 'global policeman' role.

[PitViper 0]

*looks into crystal ball*

The EU, amid a severe economic crisis blamed on the U.S, will launch an unprovoked nuclear strike at major U.S cities in approximately 16.2 years.

 

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

I think some people around here will comment that it is another certain country that has gained a reputation for launching unprovoked attacks lately, but not me of course.

[Postduifje 0]

It's just naive to think it'll never end. It will for sure, altough I'm not sure we'll be there to see it (could be tough).

-Post

[Die Alive 0]

Since I'd rather look at porn than think up of a response to this thread... I'm gonna just copy and paste something I found somewhere else.

quote

Can the Peace Movement Make the UN the Only Superpower?

One Bush administrations goal is to destroy the UN and the vision of a world democracy. The Peace Movement must step up to support the UN and restructure global power to serve all.

Length: 1250 words.

The US occupation of Iraq has grave implications for the future of the international power structure and the global economy. Iraq has been called the first battle in the fourth world war (the Cold War being the third) by figures inside the Bush administration. Some believe the reasons of this war were for stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, stopping terrorism and liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein’s tyranical rule. None of this has yet been accomplished, which leads many others to believe the Bush administrations reasons for this war were driven by more selfish reasons such as controlling Iraq’s vast oil reserves and permanently basing US troops in the region. All these reasons are valid and true, but they are merely isolated aspects of the Bush administration’s larger project of restructuring global power.

Ideologues actively involved developing the Bush administration’s policies have long desired to go to war with Iraq as a way to implement a ‘New World Order.’ The basic plans for a Pax-Americana are spelled out by the Project for a New a New American Century, a right-wing think tank established in the mid-90’s by numerous figures currently in the Bush administration, in their September 2000 report entitled ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses.’ The plan for a Pax-American is nothing short of a global empire enforced by overwhelming military strength and presence reaching across the planet. The plan has colonialist implications in its desire to open the world to unchecked economic opportunity by transfering US soldiers into other countries to allow selected transnational corporations to abstract resources from their land to be sold on the international market. These men truly seem to believe they, and only they, can bring democracy to the world through unilateral military force.

The Bush administration is attempting to completely undermine the United Nations, which exposes the contradiction in their methods of achieving their stated goals of bringing democracy to the world. The Independent (UK) revealed on March 2, a memo written by an US official that reveals the US spied on the members of the Security Council, looking for things to use against them to gain support for the war against Iraq. The US went to great lengths to coerce Security Council members to support the war, including threatening to withdraw economic and military aid to the non-permanent members. When it was apparent that the Security Council was not going to pass a resolution supporting war, Bush declared they had become ‘ineffective.’ At the outset of the Iraq war, Richard Perle, a highly influential figure in the Bush administration who recently resigned as chairman of the Defense Policy Board, but remains a member, was quoted by London’s Guardian as saying "Thank god for the death of the UN." Perle boasted of the defeat of Saddam Hussein and the collapse of the UN, which he referred to as the ‘chatterbox on the Hudson,’ as a dual victory. Without the UN to challenge the US’s unilateral actions, the imposition of the Pax-Americana will go more smoothly for the right-wing ideologues in power.

The Bush administration’s plan of restructuring global power under their influence has a great chance of backfiring on them. The backlash by groups persecuted by the US, especially Muslims, may develop into a force too powerful to be economically viable to be controlled by military force. Another possibility is that OPEC will switch to the euro, causing flight from the dollar and therefore economic fallout for the US, while strengthening the euro. Yet another possibility is Asian nations and other regional blocks will succeed in forming economic unity under a single currency. The Non-Aligned Movement, a group of 116 developing nations that opposed the war, could follow Venezuela’s example and begin a barter system of trade with their undervalued commodities. The possibility also exists that the US will continue to isolate themselves to the point where the UN General Assembly decides to go over the head of the US to takeover administering Iraq.

While the above possibilities seem distant at this point, it cannot be ignored that the actions taken by the Bush administration, especially concerning Iraq, have instigated the world’s largest peace movement, which has been called ‘the world’s second super-power.’ In a letter to George Bush, famed Brazilian author Paulo Coehlo thanks Bush for his disregard of world public opinion, revealing ‘the gulf that exists between the decisions made by those in power and the wishes of the people.’ Respected British journalist George Monbiot, indicates that the men in the Bush administration who think they can ‘extend democracy’ through war while serving elite interests ‘are not monsters. They are simply responding to opportunities that power presents’. This analysis points to problems in the structure of global power, not merely to the individuals that run the country.

The role of the peace movement from this point should be to shift the structure of global power away from the unilateral hierarchy the US is trying to impose and towards a multilateral system of cooperation. In the short-term, voting Bush out of office and replacing him with leaders willing to listen to the people of the world, is certainly necessary to achieving a world democracy. Another method suggested to check US power has been an economic boycott, but as Monbiot points out: ‘US trade has penetrated the economies of almost all other nations of such an extent that to boycott its goods and services would be to boycott our own.’ This is another example of the importance of the peace movement’s need to advocate structural change.

One way this could begin would be to insist the US pull its forces out of Iraq and allow UN peacekeeping forces to keep stability. From there the UN should be encouraged to govern until Iraqi’s can elect a government that truly represents the people. The US should pay the bulk of the rebuilding costs and assist the Iraqi economy under their terms. For the US peace movement the UN flag could represent multilateral world democracy, counteracting the abundance of American flags that have been raised since the 9-11 attacks that to many now represents unilateral aggression rather than freedom and prosperity. As Stephen Zunes notes in Tinderbox, ‘there has been little effort among American activists to support pro-democracy movements in the Middle East.’ Establishing and strengthening democracy across the globe should become one of the main priorities of the peace movement. Working with indigenous movements, labor unions, NGO’s and grassroots institutions is one way to work towards democracy. Another place to build democracy is in the UN, once the Security Council is abolished and all nations are given a voice equal to the population they represent.

The peace movement should continue to join forces with the global justice (anti-globalization) movement to encourage the diversification of currencies on the international market. Encouraging the strength of the euro combined with the rise of an Asian currency would be a step towards diluting global power. To keep the rising economic powers in the EU and Asia from acting similarly to the US, the movement would also have to encourage unity amongst the developing world. Economic and political unity between developing regions and strengthening the Non-Aligned Movement with the rise of a barter system could be another way to balance world power. But most important for the peace movement is to continue to struggle for a grass roots democracy that is able to provide a structure for all voices to be heard, all mouths to be feed, and all individuals to be empowered through a structure that measures progress by a system’s ability to incorporate all into the decision making process. /quote

How's my copy and paste skills?

-=Die Alive=-

[DarkLight 0]

How's my copy and paste skills?

How's the porn?

[PitViper 0]

Quote[/b] ]The peace movement should continue to join forces with the global justice (anti-globalization) movement to encourage the diversification of currencies on the international market.

They need to globalize the anti-globalization movement?

*chuckle*

[PitViper 0]

I think some people around here will comment that it is another certain country that has gained a reputation for launching unprovoked attacks lately, but not me of course.  :cool:

sorry. I was having a DarkLight moment ;)

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]which leads many others to believe the Bush administrations reasons for this war were driven by more selfish reasons such as controlling Iraq’s vast oil reserves and permanently basing US troops in the region. All these reasons are valid and true, but they are merely isolated aspects of the Bush administration’s larger project of restructuring global power.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Nice little throwaway there, don't you all think? This is the thesis of the entire paper, no need to read further.

[Milkman 1]

I think the United States government has learned from past mistakes by past superpowers, and has a chance of lasting longer than the others.

[Postduifje 0]

I think the United States government has learned from past mistakes by past superpowers, and has a chance of lasting longer than the others.

Not so sure about that. Every general curve seems to be going faster these days. A mayor technological breakthrough for instance can change the entire world power structure, and leaving those who can't seem to benefit from it empty handed. There's absolutely no way of telling who's in charge in ten, hundred and letalone thousand years. It can stay the same for (seemingly) an indefinite period, or go the total other way around tomorrow