World Power

[d4dev]

All through this thread, the term 'US' is used as if it were a single, monolithic entity. It's not.

The reality of the modern world is very different. To take the US example, there are 300 million Americans doing God knows what. The cumulative result of all these things is what you call the 'US'.

Isn't the US an independant country? Do you think that every foreign policy decision that the US takes is first agreed upon by a referendum or something?

I don't think that those 300 million Americans are relevant to this thread any more than the 1.2 billion Chinese.

[August1991]

I don't think that those 300 million Americans are relevant to this thread any more than the 1.2 billion Chinese.

Think of what you have written. It's both frightening and wrong.

The actions of 300 million Americans, going about their daily lives, matters tremendously to the world. Americans delegate relatively few decisions to the US President.

I'm not so certain that's true about the 1.2 billion Chinese and the Chinese Politburo.

I think Josef Stalin said that one death is a tragedy but 10,000 deaths is a statistic. I find that quote horrific.

[d4dev]

The actions of 300 million Americans, going about their daily lives, matters tremendously to the world. Americans delegate relatively few decisions to the US President.

I'm not so certain that's true about the 1.2 billion Chinese and the Chinese Politburo.

Why not? What about the 145 million Russians and the 1 billion Indians then? Or even us 30 million Canadians? Do our daily lives matter much? Or is it only American lives that matter?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

BTW, these individual Americans are not competing with foreigners or trying to dominate them. For the most part, when foreigners and Americans interact, they both walk away happy.

Where on Earth does this happen? Fantasyland? Americans are very bold-faced about the belief that all things should be in their favour, from trying to be the richest and most militarily powerful to the 'criminal infallibility' of it's people abroad.

[Hugo]

Where on Earth does this happen? Fantasyland?

Since 1945 around 75% of all US foreign trade and investment has been with Western Europe and Japan. Today, those countries are amongst the richest, most prosperous and most economically and politically independent in the world. The more trade America has with a country, the better for that country. Those nations that spurn America are those that are poorest. These are the undisputed facts. You can try and twist them somehow, but you cannot ignore them.

[August1991]

Why not? What about the 145 million Russians and the 1 billion Indians then? Or even us 30 million Canadians? Do our daily lives matter much? Or is it only American lives that matter?

Of course these other people matter. But you, 4d4, gave the examples of China and America.

More relevant is that the decisions of individual Americans matter alot because these individuals make arguably the important decisions. This is less so in China and even Russia.

Where on Earth does this happen? Fantasyland? Americans are very bold-faced about the belief that all things should be in their favour

Nobody can do successful business on that basis, and the Americans don't. To the extent that Americans deal with the outside world, these relations are mutually beneficial. Both sides gain.

Two examples: American cinema and American computer technology. The US federal government is more or less absent from these. Individual Americans make decisions. And if foreigners deal with Americans, both sides presumably benefit.

I could give many other examples.

[Blackleaf]

Hello, Tool, welcome to the Forum. You pose a very thought provoking question!

I believe the answer to your question is America and the reason for my belief is "Freedom". Individual freedom, I believe is the key to this question.

No other system to date has provided individuals with the personal freedom to be the best they can - to make of themselves and their talents whatever they can achieve and to keep the most of that achievement for themselves and family.

Individual success can make a country great and I believe that is America's secret!

The US only ranks 14th in the world for democracy. Ten European countries, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are more democratic than the US.

http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm

[Blackleaf]

All through this thread, the term 'US' is used as if it were a single, monolithic entity. It's not.

The reality of the modern world is very different. To take the US example, there are 300 million Americans doing God knows what. The cumulative result of all these things is what you call the 'US'.

Isn't the US an independant country? Do you think that every foreign policy decision that the US takes is first agreed upon by a referendum or something?

I don't think that those 300 million Americans are relevant to this thread any more than the 1.2 billion Chinese.

I don't think the Government gives a referendun for every foreign policy decision that the US takes otherwise they would be having referendums every week.

[Blackleaf]

The US will certainly not be able to retain it's current supremacy (and belligerence) in world affairs much longer. The BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China) are rapidly developing economies, and even now, they don't like the US much. In about 50 years from now, the world will be a much safer and democratic place than it is now.

Unfortunately, in 50 years' time, the US will be even MORE dominant than it is now. At the moment, only China, India and the EU have larger populations than the US, but the EU's population is declining (if you don't count the fact that ten new states have just been added to the Union). The population of the US is full of younger people, whereas the population of the EU is full of older people. The population of the EU now is about 450 million, compared to only 280 million for the US. But in about 2050, the population of the US will be 500 million, compared with abouy 300 million for the EU, and that is even if the EU covers ALL of Europe including the whole of Russia. So the US will have a LARGER population than the WHOLE OF EUROPE, even though now its population will be smaller. In 2050, the US will be even more dominant than it is now.

[Blackleaf]

Where on Earth does this happen? Fantasyland?

Since 1945 around 75% of all US foreign trade and investment has been with Western Europe and Japan. Today, those countries are amongst the richest, most prosperous and most economically and politically independent in the world. The more trade America has with a country, the better for that country. Those nations that spurn America are those that are poorest. These are the undisputed facts. You can try and twist them somehow, but you cannot ignore them.

What a load of rubbish. The US is also rich because of its trade with other countries. If all the world disappeared and only the US remained, it would become poor, because it has no countries to trade with. So the US doesn't make other countries rich - we also make the US rich. And some countries in the world do most of their trade with the EU rather than the US. The EU is the world's largest economy and the largest market. And most EU countries do most of their trade with other EU countries and NOT the US.

[Hugo]

What a load of rubbish.

Apparently not, since you did not refute anything I said. Yes, the US gets rich through trade. So do US trading partners, like Western Europe, Japan and more recently, China, whose average income has almost quadrupled since they opened their doors to US trade. After WWII, please tell me how the EU supposedly traded with itself so prosperously when the entire continent was in ruin? Who would Japan have traded with - China, which was mostly rubble and in the midst of civil war? US trade and investment built Western Europe and Japan back to the point where they could trade amongst themselves again.

If all the world disappeared and only the US remained, it would become poor, because it has no countries to trade with.

Most US business is internal. Foreign trade forms a fraction of the US economy. The US would be poorer, but not poor as compared to Latin America, for instance.

So the US will have a LARGER population than the WHOLE OF EUROPE... In 2050, the US will be even more dominant than it is now.

This does not make sense. You base your entire argument on the supposition that the US will have a greater population, when there is no historical evidence that population makes power. If it does, why are China and India not the dominant world powers now? Why is Russia, with the largest population in Europe, an economic and military backwater compared to the far smaller states of France, Germany and the UK? Why is Japan an economic and military giant next to China?

[Blackleaf]

As I said, European countries have OLD populations. The US has a YOUNG population. The UK, Germany and france will soon be overtaken by countries with younger and larger populations.

China will be the world's largest economy by 2020, but that doesn't mean that it will be the dominant country, because the EU is less dominant than the US despite having a larger econonmy than the US.

Also, the size of a country's population DOES matter in relation to the size of its economy. A country with a small population CANNOT have a large economy. India, with a population of a billion, will soon become the 4th largest economy in the world.

But the US will become more dominant because its population and economy will be larger than they are now, whereas European countries will have shrunk in 2050.

[Blackleaf]

WWII is one of the reasons why Germany and Japan are economic giants today. After the war, their countries were in ruins, and they had to rebuild their economies, thus becoming the 2nd and 3rd largest economies in the world today.

[Blackleaf]

I never said that some countries traded more with the EU in WWII, because there was NO EU in WWII. But the EU is today a larger economic power than the US and some countries do the majority of their trading with the EU rather than the US. The EU is larger and richer than the US.

[Hugo]

As I said, European countries have OLD populations. The US has a YOUNG population.

I know, but this is the second time that you have failed to explain how population and population growth correlate to world power.

A country with a small population CANNOT have a large economy.

Holland in the Renaissance, or modern-day Singapore and Hong Kong prove that point wrong.

After the war, their countries were in ruins, and they had to rebuild their economies, thus becoming the 2nd and 3rd largest economies in the world today.

Again, that point makes absolutely no sense. Destroying an economy makes it stronger when rebuilt? If the energy and money that went into rebuilding could have been used on growth, rather than getting back to the starting grid, would that not make an even stronger economy? Is that not why Germany went from being the greatest world power in 1914 to an also-ran ever since?

Perhaps you have heard of the Marshall Plan? Are you aware that of all the countries the USA made war loans to, only one ever paid them back?

But the EU is today a larger economic power than the US and some countries do the majority of their trading with the EU rather than the US. The EU is larger and richer than the US.

The EU is also not a coherent economic or political body, as events keep demonstrating to those who dream of a European super-state. You might as well talk about the power of Africa.

[AKr0n]

Lol!!Hi, this is my first post...

Perhaps you have heard of the Marshall Plan? Are you aware that of all the countries the USA made war loans to, only one ever paid them back?

Yes i've heard of this...but..one thing is to help without saying anything, another thing is to help and in exchange require the helped to think as the helper, and this my friend I think is US policy's greatest fault (greatest fault of the cold war too, the reason for it as well)...

Human rights are important!!Humans within their own society, shall decide whether democracy is for them, or not, and it is not some other SUPER power to come and force their thoughts on the poor ppl...

[AKr0n]

Blackleaf once said:

The population of the US is full of younger people,

Younger..but not forcibly smarter, looking @ US education which in MY POINT OF VIEW (yes mine...) hasn't yet been reformed since the cold war...which means that you study how to be a good capitalist--->therefore benefitting, not caring about others..

Education plays a crucial role today, those who will be in power in 10-20-30 years, are those who are educated, and can look @ the world from more than just one perspective...whereas IN MY POINT OF VIEW, US education (as a whole..there are exceptions) cannot offer its citizens...

To back this up----> check this site www.costofwar.com

[Hugo]

another thing is to help and in exchange require the helped to think as the helper, and this my friend I think is US policy's greatest fault (greatest fault of the cold war too, the reason for it as well)...

Firstly, the US was never coercive towards the nations of the Far East or Western Europe that it helped. Both Italy and France have elected socialist governments and have have held quite anti-US policies at one time or another. There was even talk at one time that France would not honour her NATO obligations in the event of a Warsaw Pact attack. The US did not attempt to use force or embargo to dissuade these policies.

Secondly, had the US not fought the Cold War as hard as it did, you would really know the meaning of coercion. As in being crushed to pulp beneath the treads of a Soviet T-72, or kneeling on a stone floor waiting for a bullet in the back of the head for daring to suggest that Lenin was anything but a living god.

Oh, and welcome to the forum.

[KrustyKidd]

Human rights are important!!Humans within their own society, shall decide whether democracy is for them, or not, and it is not some other SUPER power to come and force their thoughts on the poor ppl...

If you are suggesting that the US was wrong by outsing Saddam in that the Iraqi people should have done it themselves it never would have happened. Saddam was born by Coup and his main preoccupation was preventing one, not WMD or quests for domination of the region. He built cities and transportation systems so that he could control people and eliminate this possibility. Centralized command and control and had an intricate network of terror and spies amongst the population.

So if not a superpower then who? And furthermore, if 'humans within their own society' are not even allowed to speak of anything other than the party line, how can they decide if they want a democratic vote or even LOL hold a vote to see if they want to vote?

[AKr0n]

OK, yes, I'll take this into account..hmm,

but

If you are suggesting that the US was wrong by outsing Saddam in that the Iraqi people should have done it themselves it never would have happened.

I totally agree with this, but then, US, by doing this, created chaos in that region, whereas saddam kept it under firm control (and although I must say it is terrible what he did), what the US gvt did, was to open barriers between different cultures and ethnics in Irak....If one day they will withdraw (which is going to be hard..), the americans will leave the poor iraki ppl to fight between themselves. Saddam was there to bring fear, in order to bring people together, now this fear is gone, yes sure they will be united but only until USA leaves...After,...I don't really want to imagine, but I will, and what I imagine is a big civil war, with all the known attrocities, committed by: USA, Sadam, and all those who committed them in the past (in the world, not only irak..)

Final result:

Saddam killed (i dont know this...) a few thousand , million over his 20 years of rule (or more?)

US Intervention- by now its 10k that died (although you can't trust media nowadays...)

When US Troops leave- millions...millions...----->the U.n? What will they do?Come in and say, don't fight, peace...no it doesnt work like this nowadays...

So if not a superpower then who? And furthermore, if 'humans within their own society' are not even allowed to speak of anything other than the party line, how can they decide if they want a democratic vote or even LOL hold a vote to see if they want to vote?

Well...history has all the facts there for you

French Revolution--->u seriously think peasants could speak?

Russian Revolution--->non-priveleged groups??who are they?

In my point of view (as again, it is important I say this, so that people don't take this as a fact, and thinking i'm imposing smthg on them =) ) generally speaking, the iraki people didn't have enough will to do so, because the situation wasn't that bad altogether----->now how could sadam develop the country??If there was an embargo...Of course he will try to keep the riches of the country for himself, but in doing so, he deprives them from the population, which sooner or later would've stood up to this...

Firstly, the US was never coercive towards the nations of the Far East or Western Europe that it helped. Both Italy and France have elected socialist governments and have have held quite anti-US policies at one time or another. There was even talk at one time that France would not honour her NATO obligations in the event of a Warsaw Pact attack. The US did not attempt to use force or embargo to dissuade these policies.

Secondly, had the US not fought the Cold War as hard as it did, you would really know the meaning of coercion. As in being crushed to pulp beneath the treads of a Soviet T-72, or kneeling on a stone floor waiting for a bullet in the back of the head for daring to suggest that Lenin was anything but a living god.

Why the US wasn't coercive??Hehe, historically, Russia, the Soviet Union (yehaaa!!i was born there under the crumbling regime-1986 =) ) was feared, and this goes back to post-WW1, when the Russians "betrayed" their allies. Communism was seen as an ally of Germany's evil..This is why British as well as French, and **** knows what other countries sent troops to go fight communism, which had triumphed, and had gotten the right to be feared especially after the doctorine of spreading it around the world.....And I am not saying that this is good or bad, don't assume things that haven't been written....My father was in the communist party, and although he benefitted greatly from various things, other things were reprehensible...50 million dead, for the "great" communist cause----->this is a crime against humanity---->so coming back to my point, USA knew that France and Italy (although socialist--->not communist) would never become communist....

Wasn't it the cold war policy of the 2 powers, to prevent the doctorine of the other to spread??

Well hehe, socialism exists everywhere, and always existed but under different forms (hmm feudal system??not sure) and isn't harmful, more helpful to countries actually...

Hehe! Did you see that T-72 thing in a movie about Afghanistan??Hehe, by the way...coming back to the issue of this topic....Irak = Afghanistan....beginning of the end (as I see it...) 10 years only after Afghanistan, Soviet economy was in ruin, and at the dawn of a "revolution" in Russia, and still hasn't recovered...

And yes I agree, you can't just kill people like this, but it must be clearly understood that Soviet Communism, was the FIRST type of communism put into practise....Like USA...when they had their so called democracy...and then for over a 100 years, repressing black people...do you think thats right?No probably not....For any regime to be stable, it takes time, to test things, and opposition must be erased, though how, it differs from state to state...All throughout Russian history, blood had been spilled endlessly, in order for this great country to be stable...

Lenin, g0d? Yes of course, he was the father of Russian modernisation (with Stolypin, tho to a greater extent)

Modernisation??Yes, Russia was one of the most backward countries in the world before the revolution, revolution brought terror, but in the long run, when you look at Russia now....(even though many intelligent people have been massacred in the course.. =( ), and I will tell you for sure, the education system there, made up of only 11 grades, is far more advanced than in many other countries including USA, BUT!!BUT!! except for sciences, many studies were biased, just like in the states, so that coming out of school, you would work towards a "greater communism" (USA, towards a "greater capitalism", though you are able to deny this, and follow ur own path)......The fall of communism brought terrible conditions to the country...Hehe, i'm already getting tired and confused, so I will just go on studying my history (exam tomorrow ) and I will get back to this =)

Take care!

[KrustyKidd]

I totally agree with this, but then, US, by doing this, created chaos in that region, whereas saddam kept it under firm control (and although I must say it is terrible what he did), what the US gvt did, was to open barriers between different cultures and ethnics in Irak....If one day they will withdraw (which is going to be hard..), the americans will leave the poor iraki ppl to fight between themselves. Saddam was there to bring fear, in order to bring people together, now this fear is gone, yes sure they will be united but only until USA leaves...After,...I don't really want to imagine, but I will, and what I imagine is a big civil war, with all the known attrocities, committed by: USA, Sadam, and all those who committed them in the past (in the world, not only irak..)

Final result:

Saddam killed (i dont know this...) a few thousand , million over his 20 years of rule (or more?)

US Intervention- by now its 10k that died (although you can't trust media nowadays...)

When US Troops leave- millions...millions...----->the U.n? What will they do?Come in and say, don't fight, peace...no it doesnt work like this nowadays...

KK

Saddam, 400 thousand of his own people in executions and ten thousand since the war began. As for your second point of there being millions dead after the US has left, you are assuming that the US will not win or be successful here.

Well...history has all the facts there for you

French Revolution--->u seriously think peasants could speak?

Russian Revolution--->non-priveleged groups??who are they?

KK

You are telling me that Marie Anoinette is the security and terror equivilent to Saddam Hussein? Cut me some slack here! Saddam’s whole being was energized into preventing a coup. It wasn’t simply a hobby but a systematic regime of torture and spying that made Communism and the Nazis pale in comparisson. Neighbors dared not speak for fear of being turned in to the police and torture and rape was used to keep everybody in fear of standing out in any way or form. He built highways to cordon cities off so that his tanks could move and separate whole population areas to enforce control, the right hand never knew what the left was doing. If you think that people could gather in any number in Iraq to protest you are dead wrong. Dissent is met with instant imprisonment.

In France and Russia the situation was not one of being in touch with the voice of the people but hinged around the political equivilent of ‘nobody being there to watch the pot boil’ as leaders were so out of touch with what was really happening that people simply took matters into their own hands. Saddam on the other hand maintained the complete opposite, keeping everythng and body under his boot. The Euros thought they were benevolent to the people, on the other hand, Saddam had no such illusions.

Let’s look at another fact. Arabs don’t agree too well with each other. Witness the taking of Damascus with Lawrence. You figure that 25 million can get together in secret to oust a leader who is ready for them?

No, there is no comparisson to the revolutions in France or Russia.

In my point of view (as again, it is important I say this, so that people don't take this as a fact, and thinking i'm imposing smthg on them =) ) generally speaking, the iraki people didn't have enough will to do so, because the situation wasn't that bad altogether----->

KK

See the above on mass graves and check out Amnesty International. It was a regular Disneyland.

now how could sadam develop the country??If there was an embargo...Of course he will try to keep the riches of the country for himself, but in doing so, he deprives them from the population, which sooner or later would've stood up to this...

KK

Adhere by the ceasefire agreement and have the embargo lifted? Stop building palaces so that he can feed his people? Actually distribute the food and supplies instead of hoarding it for his military?

Why the US wasn't coercive??Hehe, historically, Russia, the Soviet Union (yehaaa!!i was born there under the crumbling regime-1986 =) ) was feared,

KK

Now it is no longer communist because democracy won the cold war.

 

Well hehe, socialism exists everywhere, and always existed but under different forms (hmm feudal system??not sure) and isn't harmful, more helpful to countries actually...

KK

Communism is state terror and control, socialism is equality. There is a big difference. Read the democracy thread and it explains it.

For any regime to be stable, it takes time, to test things, and opposition must be erased, though how, it differs from state to state.

KK

There you go, words of wisdom. Now, if we can convince the Left of your's and Bush's theology then maybe they will stop complaining about what is happening in Iraq and understand the this is 'going to be a long and difficult struggle.'

[Hugo]

Yes, Russia was one of the most backward countries in the world before the revolution, revolution brought terror, but in the long run, when you look at Russia now....

Now that Communism, spearheaded by the Bolsheviks, has been responsible for well over a hundred million murders and countless more tortures, rapes, deportations, forced labours and more?

That's quite a horrific point. Communism has been responsible for more terror, death and needless suffering than any other movement or calamity in the history of humanity. Even had the Soviet modernization efforts been completely successful (which they were not), it would not have been worth it. What's the point in bringing electricity when the people you are bringing it to are all dead?

Lenin, g0d? Yes of course

The devil, more like. It would be difficult to find a more inhuman and evil man, even on the world stage that includes men like Hitler or Stalin. Lenin stands as a great example of what happens when you allow yourself to be overcome by hate and rage.

[Black Dog]

Saddam, 400 thousand of his own people in executions and ten thousand since the war began

Notwithstanding the fact that the period of Saddanm's worst atrocities coincided with the period when he enjoyed extensive material and political support from the West, the problem with this line of logic is that Saddam Hussein was far from being the worst tyrant on the block.

The west is nothing if not selective when it comes to its villains. Let's not forget General Suharto of Indonesia who was resposible for the deaths of millions in East Timor over a thirty year period where he ruled with the full support of the U.S and Canada. Then there is Uzbeckistan, one of America's favorite partners in the war on terror, which has been cited for torture, religious persecution and harassment of human rights advocates and opposition mmbers.

I find it sad that defenders of the Iraq adventure seem uintroubled by what is a continuing pattern of selective support for tyrants and thugs by the west, and are capable of the most complex moral gymnastics in order to justify such behavior.

[KrustyKidd]

Notwithstanding the fact that the period of Saddanm's worst atrocities coincided with the period when he enjoyed extensive material and political support from the West, the problem with this line of logic is that Saddam Hussein was far from being the worst tyrant on the block.

Whenever whatever. He killed far more in day to day administration on average than have died scince the US invaded. In this endeavor the US has saved lives.

One more thing, as they are unearthing the mass graves they are dating them as well. They are finding a large part of them are recent (92-97) . Thought you might like to know that so that you can make an Anti USA theory in advance before they publish their findings.

[AKr0n]

Saddam, 400 thousand of his own people in executions and ten thousand since the war began. As for your second point of there being millions dead after the US has left, you are assuming that the US will not win or be successful here.

LL ()

Hehe, right, but he restrained the chiites, and the kurds, and other ethnic varieties from going out in the street, speaking out in the name of their traditions, then running back home and taking their AK's to go shoot those that don't agree...400 thousand people is nothing compared to---> The freedom that USA will grant them, to go kill each other...We thank you USA.

+where does it say i assume they will not be successful??I say...They WILL not be successful, its not an assumption, its a certainty...For their goal was WMD...where are they?

Ahaha, Sadam was a secondary goal, they got rid of him, wheres the democracy?Reading what US soldiers do to the prisonners there, no words..nothing more to say..at least sadam just killed people...rather than depreciating them of all the honor they have left as human beings and mistreating them like shit..For them, those prisonners are just anyone, but anyone means everyone, so yes, I back this!!The same should be done to them...

Hehe for all those saying evil of communism---->u have never lived under a communist regime, I insure you that it ain't as terrible as you may think, now the idea of being crushed within a capitalist society, like your democracy...thats scary..But ok thats not the point, im not trying to deviate the conversation...Whatever you say about communism may be true and may be not, however, i dont think you know anything about soviet communism, except as external viewers, and you will never really know unless u talk bout this with a Russian communist, (or person) who has lived there, so please don't be so violent and aggressive like this about that, be chill =)

Now that Communism, spearheaded by the Bolsheviks, has been responsible for well over a hundred million murders and countless more tortures, rapes, deportations, forced labours and more?

Hugo, my personal opinion tells me that u've been going too much to school in the states during the cold war...lol 100million, if only, thatd be the perfect little society, which it wasnt---->half the number at least, and no offense gainst u

Communism has been responsible for more terror, death and needless suffering than any other movement or calamity in the history of humanity

And democracy chilled, while Soviet Union took the lead in space =)

Now it is no longer communist because democracy won the cold war.

Lol, or rather you should say communism lost, but you are entitled to your opinions

Hehe one thing i dont like bout this forum, is that most of you guys don't accept other ppls subjectivity, fight for your thoughts, which is respectable, but also terribly wrong, which reflects US in irak =) But don't take this personally, we are in the same trip, since we ended up on the same forum