US no longer fit to lead the world

Jan 2016
47,957
43,911
Colorado
All that brutality costs money as far as military equipment, supporting the troops basic needs and the cost of the military bases we have all over the world. All of our involvement in Countries who hate us...have done nothing but destroy the financial stability of the US. Russia won't be able to come close to spending what the US has spent for World peace. The US has acquired too much debt to continue this practice.
There's no doubt that America is suffering from a bad case of what historian Paul Kennedy of Yale University called imperial overstretch. In his rather famous book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Conflict and Military Conflict From 1500 to 2000, he described how imperial overstretch led to the decline of both the Hapsburg/Spanish Empire of the 15th and 16th centuries and the British Empire of the 17th-20th centuries, and projected how this could affect the American Empire.

And yet, as America inevitably withdraws from the world, the result is NOT going to be a more peaceful and harmonious world, contrary to what some naïve posters in this thread are evidently expecting. Large parts of the world will be ruled by brutal tyrants, and other large parts of the world will fall into utter anarchy, littered by failed states that will become hotbeds of terrorism and radical ideologies bent on destruction. We are headed for a very troubled period in world history. The 2020's and 2030's are not going to be 'nice'.

Have a nice day!
 
Jan 2016
47,957
43,911
Colorado
Likes: OldGaffer
Jan 2016
47,957
43,911
Colorado
TRUMP is dividing the country? It ain't Trump talkin' about "Race" all the time. Dems are.It ain't Trump trying to overthrow Congress. Other way around. It ain't Trump who advocates "Multi-Culturalism" ,which does indeed divide Americans. It is the LEFT. It ain't Trump who harps on how DIFFERENT folks have different rights. The LEFT came up with "Protected Groups". As to "The World" ? Who cares?
Who cares about the world?

Well, Thomas Jefferson certainly thought we should.

In the Declaration of Independence, he wrote that we should "have a decent respect for the opinions of Mankind".

You obviously DON'T.

Let us, then, call you an anti-Jeffersonian.
 
Jul 2013
37,609
23,860
On a happy trail
Who cares about the world?

Well, Thomas Jefferson certainly thought we should.

In the Declaration of Independence, he wrote that we should "have a decent respect for the opinions of Mankind".

You obviously DON'T.

Let us, then, call you an anti-Jeffersonian.
One would have thought that people from the South would have learned this lesson from having various embargoes placed against them by other nations during the CW. Due to their insistence on splitting a nation in order to keep slavery.
 
Likes: BigLeRoy
Feb 2010
68,442
44,067
valid location
No, but you might be naive. It's true that the US has been a bad actor, but is it possible for a powerful nation to be a good actor in all cases? Looking at history, I don't think it is. In the 20th century, the US intervened in two world wars, making the difference for the winning side (which in at least one case was decidedly the "right" side). We spent tons of money rehabilitating the economies of both our allies and our enemies from WWII. We took on the lion's share of costs for defending much of the world from totalitarian regimes until those regimes collapsed or converted into something else. During the post-war period the world has seen a consistently ever-lower rate of armed conflict. Yes, our mistakes and the choices we made to improve our own standing in the world that may not have been wise or necessary are easy to name: Korea, Pinochet, Vietnam....

On the whole, we've been a remarkably benevolent hegemon. Like democracy in government, our leadership in the world has been the worst...except when compared to (nearly) all the others.
 
Feb 2010
16,177
6,802
Where'm I At, Doe?
No, but you might be naive. It's true that the US has been a bad actor, but is it possible for a powerful nation to be a good actor in all cases? Looking at history, I don't think it is. In the 20th century, the US intervened in two world wars, making the difference for the winning side (which in at least one case was decidedly the "right" side). We spent tons of money rehabilitating the economies of both our allies and our enemies from WWII. We took on the lion's share of costs for defending much of the world from totalitarian regimes until those regimes collapsed or converted into something else. During the post-war period the world has seen a consistently ever-lower rate of armed conflict. Yes, our mistakes and the choices we made to improve our own standing in the world that may not have been wise or necessary are easy to name: Korea, Pinochet, Vietnam....

On the whole, we've been a remarkably benevolent hegemon. Like democracy in government, our leadership in the world has been the worst...except when compared to (nearly) all the others.
Tell Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and Pakistan what a benevolent hegemon we are.

What's funny is, the British empire at least felt some degree of "white man's burden." We just flatten countries and then install a bunch of Chicago Boy free-marketeers to profit from the anarchy and suffering.

Sorry, but you need to quit lying to yourself. Okay, World War II, yes, but since then we've been a net horror to the rest of the world, and one day we're going to have to confront this, just like every other colonizing empire has had to do.
 
Mar 2019
802
321
California
One would have thought that people from the South would have learned this lesson from having various embargoes placed against them by other nations during the CW. Due to their insistence on splitting a nation in order to keep slavery.
Jefferson Davis was a Democrat. The Democrats controlled the SOUTH. Moving on ,the DEMOCRATS controlled the South during Jim Crow times. 'Nuff said.
 

Similar Discussions