A New World Order - Balance of Power?

BWhite · 2005-01-18 16:36:32

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05h … nteresting Op-Ed

Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw heads to Beijing this week to kowtow before the Middle Kingdom, and tell his Chinese hosts that Britain's long opposition to removing the European embargo from selling arms to China is about to end.

If the arms embargo is lifted and China starts buying high-tech stuff from Europe and Russia, our defense budget will need to increase to keep pace.

If we ban UK companies (such as Rolls Royce) then the industrial base our defense can draw upon is reduced making the above task that much harder.

In any event, lifting the EU arms embargo against China is not good news, especially for Taiwan's long term prospects.

Edited By BWhite on 1106087843

Euler · 2005-01-18 20:35:28

From a strictly military viewpoint, the lifting of the embargo would not make a huge difference. China's newest indigenous military technology is already comparable to European technology in most areas. In addition, European technology has already been slipping into China despite the ban.

However, as a political statement the lifting of the ban could be very significant. The EU is saying that it values its relationship with China as much as it values its relationship with America.

After his talks in Beijing, Jack Straw will then fly to Tokyo for talks with Japan, which is preparing to defend the southern remote islands off Kyushu and Okinawa from possible invasion amid rising security concerns about China, according to papers published Sunday by Kyodo News.
The plan calls for a dispatch of 55,000 members of the Ground Self-Defense Force as well as warplanes, destroyers and submarines in case the islands are attacked.

It is interesting how they talk about the “invasion” of these islands. The islands in question are a couple of uninhabited rocks exactly half way between Japan and Taiwan. They are claimed by Japan, China, and Taiwan. However, what these countries are really after is not the islands but the sea area around them, which might contain an oil field.

GraemeSkinner · 2005-01-19 05:30:50

*Euler* You just mentioned the magic words oil fields

Graeme

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-01-19 13:17:12

*Euler* You just mentioned the magic words oil fields
Graeme

Stupid oil Islands should be bombed, somebody would maybe be smart like the UN and USA if they went in and burnt off all this oil or dumped it into the Ocean.

You have a few radicals in Asia, and China was long ago under a horrible communist rule, the people of China were ruled with an Iron fist in the commie system, many idiots are now trying to claim these islands and now Japan has had its radicals grow, the Tokyo governor refers to other Asians as animals and calls Chinese n$*ggers, Japan also claims ownership of islands that perhaps belong to other nations aswell like Vietnam, Russian isles, S.Korea and the Phillippines ! People from outside have caused problems with China. It would be stupid to start trouble with China today, because the Chinese military is far more powerful today, many submarines, aircraft, missiles, nukes, battleships....these oil islands are a stupid problem I hope the issue doesn't grow

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-19 13:33:00

these oil islands are a stupid problem I hope the issue doesn't grow

But those islands aren't the problem at all, their potential as a fulcrum of conflict is merely a symptom of the greater "problem."

The "problem" being China upsetting the current order and sending ripples through the current geopolitical scene.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-01-19 13:48:52

The "problem" being China upsetting the current order and sending ripples through the current geopolitical scene.

The ripples were already in Asia, its now that China grows strong through trade, technology, militarymight, space-designs and economics that much of those ripples have started to bounce-back & and hit the nations that are causing trouble in the frist place
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p … 750529.stm
http://www.littlespeck.com/region/CFore … 030712.htm
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common … ...00.html
China is quiet now and somewhat happy, but if Japan or some of its racial ministers start trouble then Chinese might respond

Grypd · 2005-01-19 14:13:13

Unfortunatly this is a definite told you so. Back in November I reported in the Bush next four years topic that Blair had been to Washington. On his agenda had been the stalled middle east peace process, Galileo and how to progress in Iraq and to get relations with Europe back into harmony with the US.

Insiders at the meeting on both sides basically stated it was more or less a disaster. After that people in the whitehouse where calling Blair a potential future enemy. Add to this certain things which have happened in Iraq and things where not so rosy.

Politically Blair and Bush are at different sides of the political spectrum but that was put aside when 9/11 happened and the war against terror. Blair put his relationship with Europe which he naturally leans to on the line. Europe appears to have polarised around the distrustful attitude of France and Germany and is feeling a lot more powerful in its own right. So now with the relationship with the USA fractured by the USA this leaves Britain a stark choice carry on in a one sided relationship and that is how it feels more often than not or go with our neighbours.

Im not a fan of Blair, but I can understand the position he is in. And frankly I can only see a bigger seperation between the USA and the UK coming. If 9/11 had not happened it was apparent that the USA was leaning to far east towards China and the nations there. But so was Europe which saw China as a great investment and NOT as a potential military rival like the USA does. As the nations of Europe get closer it will only increase the pressure on the looser countries to choose there sides. And Europe does appear to be the saner bet than a militaristic dictatorial USA.

Of course in Washington with Condalleezza Rice as the new secretary of State this can be turned around. It really is time for the USA to be aware of what is happening.

Euler · 2005-01-19 15:16:10

It's time for Americans to stop doing whatever we feel like doing and start thinking strategically. The way I see it, the major players in the world today are the US, Europe, the BRIC(Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries, and Japan. The Middle East is basically a battleground between the different sides, and no one really cares about Africa.

Europe and Japan are developed countries facing a demographic bomb and declining populations. While a more unified Europe and a more militant Japan will be able to exert considerable influence in the short term, they will get relatively weaker in the long term. While this is happening, the BRIC countries will be developing and will considerably increase their strength. The US will take the middle path, without the rapid growth of BRIC, but also without having a massive demographic bomb to the same extent as Europe.

The US will be the leader of one side, and China will probably be the leader of the other. Japan will end up on the US side almost automatically, but the other BRIC countries and possible Europe seem to be lining up on China's side. That is a bad sign, because that means that the US is already on the side that is economically weaker. Europe really should be on our side when you consider the shared US and European cultural heritage and historical alliances; we should take some steps to ensure that they do end up on our side rather than on China's.

Aside from maintaining our alliance with Europe, the most important thing to do right now is to cultivate an alliance with India. India and China have fought wars in the past and they still have some border disputes, but relations have been improving recently. This is partly due to the prodding of Russia, who is the largest supplier of foreign weaponry for both countries. Since India is both the only country in the world with a population comparable to China's and the BRIC country that will probably be the easiest to recruit onto our side, it makes sense that India should be the main focus of our diplomatic efforts. With if we can get both Europe and India on the side of the US, we should be able to maintain superiority over China for the foreseeable future.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-19 19:49:52

Actually, I support a worldwide conference for all nation including Africa to see what each nation needs to function as a sovereign nation states and we work for a common good for all nations of the world. But, we need to give up George Bush's Imperial Wars to conquer the rest of the world though. But, if we continue our policies, then there is no reason that those other nation should side with the United States. Because, it not in there best interest to side with the United States with a President like George Bush in Office. Those nation that side with the United States would be defending George Bush to invade the rest of the world and eventually they would get invaded too. So any other nation that chooses to side America, would have fools for leaders of there countries.

Larry,

Trebuchet · 2005-01-19 21:35:49

Ignoring Martian Republic's nonsense, I feel that closer relations with India are probably inevitable, barring some catastrophe; India has its own terrorist problems, worries about China, and views Bush and the Republicans as their favored US administration for reasons of trade. What Washington should do is go ahead and offer military equipment and the like to India, attempting to create a Japan-Taiwan-Australia-India chain of friendly nations. This not only is good geopolitics with regards to China, but also with the war on international terrorism, which is a problem in SE Asia as well as the Middle East.

As far as Africa goes, the US and EU have actually been influence-peddling and otherwise been involved in sub-Saharan Africa. IMHO, those nations can't be failures forever, so it's likely that someone's efforts will pay off, although it's probably a crap shoot to say which nation will make significant improvements first. The French have been the primary EU nation involved in that, and they have been ham-handed enough to make several nations lean towards the US without any particular action on Bush's part, so the US might have slightly better odds on that roulette wheel. The primary reason Africa hasn't popped up on anyone's radar is because the EU and US aren't getting in diplomatic pissing matches over the area at the moment.

In terms of overall power, the US is in the lead and is likely to hold its current relative strength during our lifetimes, as the US has unmatched R&D, industrial, and military muscle matched with a very big (3rd most populous in world) population. (An additional 'wild card' factor - a distinct unconcern about genetic engineering, nanotech, etc, compared to Europe - means that the US has an element of complete unpredictability to it, as well; it's possible that in the next 50 years, the US might rewrite the rulebook. China is mucking around with nano as well, and has a lesser unpredictable-results factor. The EU, Japan, and other nations seem to be playing it cautiously in that regard). China will pick up power at the EU and Japan's relative expense; Russia and Brazil will probably stay more or less the same; India will gain some relative advantage. The end result is very nice from the perspective of worrying about large-scale warfare, with the Himalayas seperating two of the three main contenders, and the US on the other side of the world. Proxy warfare would be the rule, especially if the US drops its Will Rodgers diplomacy (Will Rogers: "Diplomacy is saying 'Nice doggy' until you find a rock") with regards to Pakistan.

BWhite · 2005-01-19 22:19:54

In terms of overall power, the US is in the lead and is likely to hold its current relative strength during our lifetimes, as the US has unmatched R&D, industrial, and military muscle matched with a very big (3rd most populous in world) population.

My frequent bashing of our current Administration arises from my own strong sense that we are "overplaying" our hand on these points. If we are holding 4 aces or a strong flush, then many of my criticisms of Bush, Rice etc. . . are off base. But if our hand is weaker (as I believe it is) then we are pursuing a reckless strategy that will be disastrous in the long term.

Japan? China can inflict terrible damage with conventional weapons and we cannot prevent that. More important perhaps, China offers Japan a larger export market than the US. Rather than rely upon Japan, I fear we need to be wary of a defection, possibly at a critical crisis point.

Taiwan? That's a liability not an asset. It's a target we must defend.

India is one key. But India and Iran have strong ties and Putin is working overtime to build bridges to India. If we lose India diplomatically, we find ourselves with a lousy, lousy hand.

What I simply fail to understand is the almost smug insistence on giving Europe our middle finger. It's "Do it our way" or "Go to hell!" - - Freedom fries are a perfect example.

German intelligence, by the way, said they did not believe Saddam had WMD.

We said: "You're Wrong!" and Rumsfeld openly snubbed the German leadership. Except they were right after all.

USA allied with Europe, Western Civilization could rule the world.

But that would require the US to accept the EU as a partner, not a subordinate.

= = =

Will India remain happy for very long as a junior ally? And if they are not to be a junior ally, why should Europe be a junior ally?

= = =

Flashpoint - - Venuzuela. China needs their oil. All the more as we threaten Iran with regime change.

Chinese support of Chavez could cause a very real war in our own hemisphere.

Edited By BWhite on 1106195691

Euler · 2005-01-19 23:45:49

As far as Africa goes, the US and EU have actually been influence-peddling and otherwise been involved in sub-Saharan Africa. IMHO, those nations can't be failures forever, so it's likely that someone's efforts will pay off, although it's probably a crap shoot to say which nation will make significant improvements first.

Africa's economy ought to improve, but that does not mean that it will. Unlike Asia, Africa has been getting relatively poorer rather than richer.

In terms of overall power, the US is in the lead and is likely to hold its current relative strength during our lifetimes, as the US has unmatched R&D, industrial, and military muscle matched with a very big (3rd most populous in world) population.

I am not sure that our industrial output is still unmatched, and our R&D advantage won't last forever. Far more scientists and engineers are graduating from Chinese colleges each year than from American colleges. Our military advantage will outlive the other two, but once we are at a significant economic disadvantage it will only be a matter of time before we fall behind there too.

Japan? China can inflict terrible damage with conventional weapons and we cannot prevent that. More important perhaps, China offers Japan a larger export market than the US. Rather than rely upon Japan, I fear we need to be wary of a defection, possibly at a critical crisis point.

The Japanese Naval Self-Defense Forces are still capable of defeating the PLAN in a conventional battle, and they are getting rid of the pacifist restrictions in their constitution. However, in the long term they will not be able to keep up with China's military might unless we back them up, and possibly not even then. I don't think we need to worry about a defection any time soon though; there is a great deal of enmity between the two countries right now.

Taiwan? That's a liability not an asset. It's a target we must defend.

I agree with that.

India is one key. But India and Iran have strong ties and Putin is working overtime to build bridges to India. If we lose India diplomatically, we find ourselves with a lousy, lousy hand.

That is true, but we still have a few cards that we can play. We can give India favorable trade agreements and try to build up their economy, we can work to supplant Russia as India's main source of advanced weapons, and we could support India’s bid to become a permanent member of the UN security council.

Flashpoint - - Venuzuela. China needs their oil. All the more as we threaten Iran with regime change.
Chinese support of Chavez could cause a very real war in our own hemisphere.

I am not sure there is anything that we can do about this. The Latin American countries are not happy about the way that we have been overthrowing their governments, and if we try to do it some more it will just make things worse.

Trebuchet · 2005-01-19 23:59:11

To put it bluntly, the world has not changed so much as it has reverted to a pre-WWII system of pure balance of power considerations. Fascism and Communism had all sorts of mental baggage demanding epic struggles between ideologically opposed factions. With both pretty much dead in the water, things will happen on an ad-hoc basis for the foreseeable future. The maverick posture of the United States over the past few years is not irrational, short sighted thinking but the first nation ditching the remnants of the Cold War system. There is no great ideological enemy to be organized against. The world situation is unstable and unpredictable, and technologies in the offing that could change the rules of the game entirely. And the possibilities of alignments between nations is very wide; it is not implausible to think up scenarios where any of the major players are aligned with any of the other major players. It's foolish, at this point, to tie yourself strongly to any one nation or set of nations. And that is exactly the apparent conclusion reached by *all* the major players. The Russians and Chinese have occasionally obliquely sounded out Washington to see if the US was interested in a partial alignment of interests. The Japanese have made noise about maybe building nukes. The Brazilians have bobbed all over the place, and India frets about Pakistan and sees who's the best ally available at the moment, and so forth. The field is wide open.

However, for the reasons I listed in my previous post - industrial, research, and military muscle - the US is in the driver's seat for the foreseeable future.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-01-20 04:00:38

The Japanese Naval Self-Defense Forces are still capable of defeating the PLAN in a conventional battle, and they are getting rid of the pacifist restrictions in their constitution. However, in the long term they will not be able to keep up with China's military might unless we back them up, and possibly not even then. I don't think we need to worry about a defection any time soon though; there is a great deal of enmity between the two countries right now.

It so strange really, China and the USA were friends during World War 2, Chinese gave the Americans strategic support, helped in logistics, sent troops over seas in support with the stats and China helped the US aircraft when they flew over Japan and rescued many downed US airforce pilots that had landed in China.

The USA made a mess in Asia, it responded well and bravely after the sneak cowardly attack of Pearl Harbor, but at the end of thew war their conduct was wrong firstly instead of NOT killing that scumbag Emperor the USA used atomic weapons on the people of Hiroshima, then unlike Europe after the war which had warmer relations, less wars, and saw the downfall of the Soviet Communism. So what does USA do after the war, it turns its back on a wartime ally, the Chinese and goes to bed with the enemy, Imperial Japan. Meanwhile they start protecting evil war-criminals that experimented and tortured people and prisioners of war, many of which were from Australia, S.Korea, Canada, India, China and America. Unlike Germany few of the Japanese war criminals were caught, and today the Japan minister goes to a Shrine to pray and worship, a Shrine that holds A class war criminals. Could you imagine the Germans going to put a Cathedral that enshries war criminals like Dietl, Hitler, Himmler and Mussolini ?

But there are some upcoming radicals in Japan that may hurt the USA again. Shintaro Ishihara who has already won many elections and is tipped to become the next Prime-Minsiter has said If things continue as they are, Japan and the other nations of East Asia will be nothing more than financial slaves to the U.S. When Japan was rich in the 70s and 80s it bought heavy into US property and the US dollar, Shintaro says Japan could be much better off using the trillions in US government bonds it holds for something else, Ishihara has spotted some weak points in the USA, vunerable-points in America and said if the US puts any outside pressure on Japan it can dump the American bonds at a weak levels and destroy the American Economy. Here are some stuff he said TIME: How should Japan assert itself? Ishihara: The American economy is supported by Japanese money. Japan is buying the highest percentage of government bonds. America is imposing a super-low interest-rate policy and money flows out of Japan, forced to buy American financial products. There are several steps that Japan can take, like selling American government bonds...TIME: What will happen to the two countries' economies? Ishihara: The U.S. economy will collapse.....but he isn't the only right-winger in the Japan house, Kajiyama Seiroku said Koreans wanted to be kidnapped, they wanted to be raped and forced into slavery. They welcomed it for the money ! Kanagawa governor Matsuzawa said "All Chinese are scum, they are sneaky thieves" Nakasone commented Americans are weak because Blacks lower the IQ, Yasuo Fukuda, suggested women who are beaten/raped are "asking for it" by the way they dress, but few compare to Ishihara Shinatro - Calls Chinese / Koreans Sangokujin (an old word which is offensive to Chinese and koreans meaning people of three of kingdoms which is equal to saying N*gga and also is a high-offensive remark about Tiawanese ), the Tokyo gov Promised to stop Yakuza, corruption and crime but instead helped them open gambling joints, Called old women a pack of b!tches and said they don't deserve to live after reproduction age, Supports Ring-Winger Uyoku Terrorism, enjoys other groups getting harrased and threatened and he voiced support for the placement of a Terrorist time-bomb outside the home of Minister Hitoshi Tanaka. Ishihara loves the Yasukuni, Kamikaze fighters and all that nonsense....you think I'm making this stuff up ? Well it ain't so because these nutters are the top dogs in Japan.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/ … ...ck=true
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific … 058189.stm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/ … 1280.shtml
Let me assure you folks first that unlike Japan or USA , China does not have a strike first policy. Japan has already changed their constitution and used their troops with the forces in occuptaion of Iraq. The Japanese may bark all they want be the fact is this, if the Japanese radicals start something with the Chinese then about 5 minutes later Japan will be a nothing more than smoking crater at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. Let's see if Ishihara will be running the show in Japan next year ? A problem with the USA and its position in Asia is that the US is always butt-kissing the Japanese, and Japan has no respected for this...for how can you have respect for someone who constantly kisses your ar'se ?

BWhite · 2005-01-20 09:48:20

However, for the reasons I listed in my previous post - industrial, research, and military muscle - the US is in the driver's seat for the foreseeable future.

Pride goeth before the fall.

???

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-20 10:11:31

Pride goeth before the fall.

Oh, well if there's a proverb that settles it. :;):

"Always in motion is the future" a wise old muppet once said.

Palomar · 2005-01-20 10:15:31

*America's been proud for a long time. And every civilization falls eventually. The sun used to rise and set on the British Empire. It doesn't anymore. (No offense to the Brits here).

America will fall one day, just like Rome ... and ancient Egypt ... and ...

Seasons change.

--Cindy

P.S.: I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. remains "in the driver's seat" for another solid 100 years yet. But not much beyond that.

BWhite · 2005-01-20 10:23:37

*America's been proud for a long time. And every civilization falls eventually. The sun used to rise and set on the British Empire. It doesn't anymore. (No offense to the Brits here).
America will fall one day, just like Rome ... and ancient Egypt ... and ...
Seasons change.
--Cindy

I have (had?) hopes that America might actually be different than these older empires and that through a sincere embrace of the principles written down by Thomas Jefferson and declared on July 4, 1776 we might escape the age-old cycle of empires overreaching and being dragged down.

The hey-day of America as a nation-state will someday end. But if we are smart about it we can have a soft landing rather than a hard landing and it can end with the values and principles of 1776 being spread world-wide. Our institutions may fail, but our memes triumph.

I have (had?) hope that America might actually be governed by people who had seriously read the Enlightenment philosophers and believed what they read.

What I see here is a return to the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, who pre-dates the Enlightenment and which spurns the genuis of Jefferson, Lincoln (and Voltaire).

= = =

There really is an ideological global war and its Locke vs. Hobbes

Edit to expand - - Hobbes wrote that human nature makes it impossible to avoid an endless war of "all versus all." Power is all that ever matters. Locke wrote that rational, sensible human beings can sit down together and talk and negotiate mutually beneficial ways of living together.

= = =

NOT talking to bin Laden makes sense.

NOT talking to the Europeans and proudly giving the "liberals" a stiff middle finger is entirely Hobbesian.

Edited By BWhite on 1106238631

Martian Republic · 2005-01-20 10:34:06

*America's been proud for a long time. And every civilization falls eventually. The sun used to rise and set on the British Empire. It doesn't anymore. (No offense to the Brits here).
America will fall one day, just like Rome ... and ancient Egypt ... and ...
Seasons change.
--Cindy
P.S.: I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. remains "in the driver's seat" for another solid 100 years yet. But not much beyond that.

If the United States continues doing what it doing, it not going to be in the drivers seat much longer. You don't trash your manufacturing and farming sections and remain a great country. That what Great Britain did and is why it finally fail as a military world power. But, Great Britain is still an economic power though. In that over half the investment into the world stock Market comes from Great Britain or the Common Market Countries. That why the Rothschilds in Great Britain control over half the resources in the world. It is by financial means that they control those resources and not by military might.

Larry,

Palomar · 2005-01-20 10:36:09

*America's been proud for a long time. And every civilization falls eventually. The sun used to rise and set on the British Empire. It doesn't anymore. (No offense to the Brits here).
America will fall one day, just like Rome ... and ancient Egypt ... and ...
Seasons change.
--Cindy
I have (had?) hopes that America might actually be different than these older empires and that through a sincere embrace of the principles written down by Thomas Jefferson and declared on July 4, 1776 we might escape the age-old cycle of empires overreaching and being dragged down.
The hey-day of America as a nation-state will someday end. But if we are smart about it we can have a soft landing rather than a hard landing and it can end with the values and principles of 1776 being spread world-wide. Our institutions may fail, but our memes triumph.
I have (had?) hope that America might actually be governed by people who had seriously read the Enlightenment philosophers and believed what they read.
What I see here is a return to the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, who pre-dates the Enlightenment and which spurns the genuis of Jefferson, Lincoln (and Voltaire).
= = =
There really is an ideological global war and its Locke vs. Hobbes
Edit to expand - - Hobbes wrote that human nature makes it impossible to avoid an endless war of "all versus all." Power is all that ever matters. Locke wrote that rational, sensible human beings can sit down together and talk and negotiate mutually beneficial ways of living together.

*I agree.

Unfortunately, human nature is what it is. As Machiavelli observed, "He who mistakes what is for what should be ensures his own ruin."

Seems like a philosophical catch-22.

We humans seem unfortunately highly populated with slow learners who are more content to take the low road (because it has the false appearance of being "easier").

What's that other old adage? "If it's worth having it's worth working for"...or "Nothing worth having ever came easy."

Maybe some day we'll break out of some age-old cycles -- quit repeating them. We set down history to learn from it... supposedly.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-01-20 10:41:51

Cindy, breaking the cycle is exactly what the Founders were trying to do.

Federalist Paper #1

To the People of the State of New York:
AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

This is the opening paragraph of the argument to ratify the Constitution of 1787.

Edited By BWhite on 1106240232

Martian Republic · 2005-01-20 10:57:04

*America's been proud for a long time. And every civilization falls eventually. The sun used to rise and set on the British Empire. It doesn't anymore. (No offense to the Brits here).
America will fall one day, just like Rome ... and ancient Egypt ... and ...
Seasons change.
--Cindy
I have (had?) hopes that America might actually be different than these older empires and that through a sincere embrace of the principles written down by Thomas Jefferson and declared on July 4, 1776 we might escape the age-old cycle of empires overreaching and being dragged down.
The hey-day of America as a nation-state will someday end. But if we are smart about it we can have a soft landing rather than a hard landing and it can end with the values and principles of 1776 being spread world-wide. Our institutions may fail, but our memes triumph.
I have (had?) hope that America might actually be governed by people who had seriously read the Enlightenment philosophers and believed what they read.
What I see here is a return to the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, who pre-dates the Enlightenment and which spurns the genuis of Jefferson, Lincoln (and Voltaire).
= = =
There really is an ideological global war and its Locke vs. Hobbes
Edit to expand - - Hobbes wrote that human nature makes it impossible to avoid an endless war of "all versus all." Power is all that ever matters. Locke wrote that rational, sensible human beings can sit down together and talk and negotiate mutually beneficial ways of living together.
= = =
NOT talking to bin Laden makes sense.
NOT talking to the Europeans and proudly giving the "liberals" a stiff middle finger is entirely Hobbesian.

For the most part, I agree with you. If go back the principle of the U.S. Constitution, we can save this country and break that vicious cycle of Empires rise and fall. But, the United States was not setup as an Empire, but as a Republic under different concept of government and a General Good principle concept. So this Dick Cheney and George Bush crowd represent the ultimate destruction of the United States with there policies and attempt at transforming the United States into an Empire and away from being a Republic form of Government.

Larry,

BWhite · 2005-01-20 11:02:21

Shakespeare's play Julius Ceasar is "spot on" for our current situation.

= = =

Trebuchet, Cobra, et. al.

May I suggest that being openly disrespectful of the "liberals" is not a good way to foster the national unity needed to face the global challenges that await the USA.

Bill Clinton understood the need for a "Sister Soljah" moment where he publicly and openly slapped down a member of teh fringe Left.

George Bush needs to humiliate someone like Ann Coulter - - openly and decisively - - as part of seeking to build national unity.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-20 11:05:41

The hey-day of America as a nation-state will someday end. But if we are smart about it we can have a soft landing rather than a hard landing and it can end with the values and principles of 1776 being spread world-wide. Our institutions may fail, but our memes triumph.

Which is in essence what I've been arguing. Only there are different ways of doing so, not all of them the sort of warm and fuzzy enlightened benefactor to the world variety. The Romans for example implanted memes that heavily affect us even today. And while we look to the Republic more favorably, it was the Empire that spread its idea.

There really is an ideological global war and its Locke vs. Hobbes

Both have their place and neither are right for all circumstances. Balance is key.

From Federalist 1

It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

The irony of it being that even the circumstances allowing for such reflection are the result of "accident and force." These are constant and must be recognized as such, freedom from these forces is an illusion.

But recognizing the nature of the world around us does not mean we must succumb to its basest tendencies, merely that we must be ready to deal with those who are, thus depending for our political constitutions on force

Trebuchet, Cobra, et. al.
May I suggest that being openly disrespectful of the "liberals" is not a good way to foster the national unity needed to face the global challenges that await the USA.

That door swings both ways. Recognizing it is the first step toward unity and it can't be blamed entirely on the opposition. We're all half the problem in that respect.

Palomar · 2005-01-20 11:09:10

Bill Clinton understood the need for a "Sister Soljah" moment where he publicly and openly slapped down a member of the fringe Left.
George Bush needs to humiliate someone like Ann Coulter - - openly and decisively - - as part of seeking to build national unity.

*I agree (and Sean Hannity too ... god what a pompous <expletive deleted>).

But it won't happen. Ann Coulter is the Far Right's Tokyo Rose. And she is thin, has long blonde hair, is pretty...

Sex sells, right? (Pardon the pun)

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-01-18 16:36:32

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#2 2005-01-18 20:35:28

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#3 2005-01-19 05:30:50

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#4 2005-01-19 13:17:12

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#5 2005-01-19 13:33:00

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#6 2005-01-19 13:48:52

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#7 2005-01-19 14:13:13

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#8 2005-01-19 15:16:10

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#9 2005-01-19 19:49:52

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#10 2005-01-19 21:35:49

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#11 2005-01-19 22:19:54

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#12 2005-01-19 23:45:49

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#13 2005-01-19 23:59:11

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#14 2005-01-20 04:00:38

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#15 2005-01-20 09:48:20

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#16 2005-01-20 10:11:31

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#17 2005-01-20 10:15:31

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#18 2005-01-20 10:23:37

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#19 2005-01-20 10:34:06

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#20 2005-01-20 10:36:09

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#21 2005-01-20 10:41:51

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#22 2005-01-20 10:57:04

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#23 2005-01-20 11:02:21

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#24 2005-01-20 11:05:41

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#25 2005-01-20 11:09:10

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

Board footer