Big Government

[thegreekdog]

What we are all witnessing is the end of an empire.

More like a slight curb in the US's hegemony.

Have we peaked? Is this the beginning of the gradual downward curve? Has the climax happened? Hopefully, there will be a happy ending for all.

[Trephining]

The US likely peaked in the 1960s. A World War where your country is the only industrialized one that isn't bombed to shit can really help your economy.

[Titanic]

The US likely peaked in the 1960s. A World War where your country is the only industrialized one that isn't bombed to shit can really help your economy.

True, but in terms of global influence and power then the 1990's were probably its peak.

[BigBallinStalin]

The US likely peaked in the 1960s. A World War where your country is the only industrialized one that isn't bombed to shit can really help your economy.

True, but in terms of global influence and power then the 1990's were probably its peak.

But the thing is the US is still powerful. What is evidence that we're losing our grip at the controls?


Iran's constant refusal on the nuclear issue, and it's continued production towards nuclear weapons. (Couldn't get Israel to fix this solution again, and it seems that the UNSC members, Russia and China, were countering US proposals for another embargo--but I think more embargo measures were passed anyway).

North Korea can only face so much pressure from the US with China essentially backing it. North Korea's missile technology has gone a long way in Pakistan and Iran.

But what points in the other direction? Our diplomatic handling of Pakistan was incredible. We've torn that country to shit by turning itself against the Pakistan-Taliban. They're just about in a civil war.

We've established a higher potential to have pro-US allies in Iraq and a big maybe for Afghanistan (assuming Iraq maintains its fair representation of the people, but then again they may be likely to say f*ck Off, US). But at least we got future oil secured.

Our control over oil is strong, pretty any raw material we want, we have it. China can't say the same.

+______________________________________________-

You'd have to see something clear-cut to say that's where US hegemony is falling. I'd say China taking Taiwan would be a clear indication of that.

[Baron Von PWN]

The US likely peaked in the 1960s. A World War where your country is the only industrialized one that isn't bombed to shit can really help your economy.

True, but in terms of global influence and power then the 1990's were probably its peak.

But the thing is the US is still powerful. What is evidence that we're losing our grip at the controls?


Iran's constant refusal on the nuclear issue, and it's continued production towards nuclear weapons. (Couldn't get Israel to fix this solution again, and it seems that the UNSC members, Russia and China, were countering US proposals for another embargo--but I think more embargo measures were passed anyway).

North Korea can only face so much pressure from the US with China essentially backing it. North Korea's missile technology has gone a long way in Pakistan and Iran.

But what points in the other direction? Our diplomatic handling of Pakistan was incredible. We've torn that country to shit by turning itself against the Pakistan-Taliban. They're just about in a civil war.

We've established a higher potential to have pro-US allies in Iraq and a big maybe for Afghanistan (assuming Iraq maintains its fair representation of the people, but then again they may be likely to say f*ck Off, US). But at least we got future oil secured.

Our control over oil is strong, pretty any raw material we want, we have it. China can't say the same.

+______________________________________________-

You'd have to see something clear-cut to say that's where US hegemony is falling. I'd say China taking Taiwan would be a clear indication of that.

Possibly the lack of action over the Russia-Georgia conflict a couple years ago, though it could be argued the USA just didn't care.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'd lean more towards "didn't care" because Georgia really isn't important.

[Titanic]

Iran's constant refusal on the nuclear issue, and it's continued production towards nuclear weapons. (Couldn't get Israel to fix this solution again, and it seems that the UNSC members, Russia and China, were countering US proposals for another embargo--but I think more embargo measures were passed anyway).

North Korea can only face so much pressure from the US with China essentially backing it. North Korea's missile technology has gone a long way in Pakistan and Iran.

But what points in the other direction? Our diplomatic handling of Pakistan was incredible. We've torn that country to shit by turning itself against the Pakistan-Taliban. They're just about in a civil war.

We've established a higher potential to have pro-US allies in Iraq and a big maybe for Afghanistan (assuming Iraq maintains its fair representation of the people, but then again they may be likely to say f*ck Off, US). But at least we got future oil secured.

Our control over oil is strong, pretty any raw material we want, we have it. China can't say the same.

The simple answer being that there are counter influences in many parts of the world now. A lot of African countries would rather deal with China and take their money rather then deal with the USA. Some Latin American countries are really pissed at the USA and would rather take their own path, and slowly are breaking apart from the Washington Consensus and finding their own path (I'm not talking about Chavez btw, I'm looking deeper then that), a lot of European nations whilst still very much pro-America will actually say no when they feel it is very against their interests (ie.Iraq), and central Asia is pretty much going to be a lost land for the USA as Russia and China fight for control there.

On the points you raised; you can hardly credit Pakistan's fight to your influence. For the first 7 years you just supported a dictator who continually funded his military build up against India whilst giving the tribal regions free control. If you really had this influence in 2001/02 then there would be no Afghan conflict. A lot of this may be down to the Bush administration not understanding the region or just not caring, but it took a heck of a long time even after Musharraf was thrown out to actually get the Pakistani military to start a real military commitment in Waziristan, SWAT, FATR etc... As you said in the other thread, the ISI has been known to support terrorist organisation and insurgents in the past (although theres some signs they are cutting back on this and tackling the ones which pose a real threat).

On Iraq and the Sunni Awakening, a lot did have to do with the money and influence the USA was offering to the leaders but you have to remember the domestic situation. The USA had about 140,000 troops in there (not including private contractors) so its hardly a global influence which is determining their change, but they also wanted to break away from the terrorists who has caused tens of thousands of deaths and some significant damage.

Don't get me wrong, I still believe the USA is a hyperpower in a world with no real competition, but in the past 10 years and in the decades to come its position as the dominant #1 is going to continually decrease.

[Baron Von PWN]

Iran's constant refusal on the nuclear issue, and it's continued production towards nuclear weapons. (Couldn't get Israel to fix this solution again, and it seems that the UNSC members, Russia and China, were countering US proposals for another embargo--but I think more embargo measures were passed anyway).

North Korea can only face so much pressure from the US with China essentially backing it. North Korea's missile technology has gone a long way in Pakistan and Iran.

But what points in the other direction? Our diplomatic handling of Pakistan was incredible. We've torn that country to shit by turning itself against the Pakistan-Taliban. They're just about in a civil war.

We've established a higher potential to have pro-US allies in Iraq and a big maybe for Afghanistan (assuming Iraq maintains its fair representation of the people, but then again they may be likely to say f*ck Off, US). But at least we got future oil secured.

Our control over oil is strong, pretty any raw material we want, we have it. China can't say the same.

The simple answer being that there are counter influences in many parts of the world now. A lot of African countries would rather deal with China and take their money rather then deal with the USA. Some Latin American countries are really pissed at the USA and would rather take their own path, and slowly are breaking apart from the Washington Consensus and finding their own path (I'm not talking about Chavez btw, I'm looking deeper then that), a lot of European nations whilst still very much pro-America will actually say no when they feel it is very against their interests (ie.Iraq), and central Asia is pretty much going to be a lost land for the USA as Russia and China fight for control there.

On the points you raised; you can hardly credit Pakistan's fight to your influence. For the first 7 years you just supported a dictator who continually funded his military build up against India whilst giving the tribal regions free control. If you really had this influence in 2001/02 then there would be no Afghan conflict. A lot of this may be down to the Bush administration not understanding the region or just not caring, but it took a heck of a long time even after Musharraf was thrown out to actually get the Pakistani military to start a real military commitment in Waziristan, SWAT, FATR etc... As you said in the other thread, the ISI has been known to support terrorist organisation and insurgents in the past (although theres some signs they are cutting back on this and tackling the ones which pose a real threat).

On Iraq and the Sunni Awakening, a lot did have to do with the money and influence the USA was offering to the leaders but you have to remember the domestic situation. The USA had about 140,000 troops in there (not including private contractors) so its hardly a global influence which is determining their change, but they also wanted to break away from the terrorists who has caused tens of thousands of deaths and some significant damage.

Don't get me wrong, I still believe the USA is a hyperpower in a world with no real competition, but in the past 10 years and in the decades to come its position as the dominant #1 is going to continually decrease.

FTFY

[Titanic]

Iran's constant refusal on the nuclear issue, and it's continued production towards nuclear weapons. (Couldn't get Israel to fix this solution again, and it seems that the UNSC members, Russia and China, were countering US proposals for another embargo--but I think more embargo measures were passed anyway).

North Korea can only face so much pressure from the US with China essentially backing it. North Korea's missile technology has gone a long way in Pakistan and Iran.

But what points in the other direction? Our diplomatic handling of Pakistan was incredible. We've torn that country to shit by turning itself against the Pakistan-Taliban. They're just about in a civil war.

We've established a higher potential to have pro-US allies in Iraq and a big maybe for Afghanistan (assuming Iraq maintains its fair representation of the people, but then again they may be likely to say f*ck Off, US). But at least we got future oil secured.

Our control over oil is strong, pretty any raw material we want, we have it. China can't say the same.

The simple answer being that there are counter influences in many parts of the world now. A lot of African countries would rather deal with China and take their money rather then deal with the USA. Some Latin American countries are really pissed at the USA and would rather take their own path, and slowly are breaking apart from the Washington Consensus and finding their own path (I'm not talking about Chavez btw, I'm looking deeper then that), a lot of European nations whilst still very much pro-America will actually say no when they feel it is very against their interests (ie.Iraq), and central Asia is pretty much going to be a lost land for the USA as Russia and China fight for control there.

On the points you raised; you can hardly credit Pakistan's fight to your influence. For the first 7 years you just supported a dictator who continually funded his military build up against India whilst giving the tribal regions free control. If you really had this influence in 2001/02 then there would be no Afghan conflict. A lot of this may be down to the Bush administration not understanding the region or just not caring, but it took a heck of a long time even after Musharraf was thrown out to actually get the Pakistani military to start a real military commitment in Waziristan, SWAT, FATR etc... As you said in the other thread, the ISI has been known to support terrorist organisation and insurgents in the past (although theres some signs they are cutting back on this and tackling the ones which pose a real threat).

On Iraq and the Sunni Awakening, a lot did have to do with the money and influence the USA was offering to the leaders but you have to remember the domestic situation. The USA had about 140,000 troops in there (not including private contractors) so its hardly a global influence which is determining their change, but they also wanted to break away from the terrorists who has caused tens of thousands of deaths and some significant damage.

Don't get me wrong, I still believe the USA is a hyperpower in a world with no real competition, but in the past 10 years and in the decades to come its position as the dominant #1 is going to continually decrease.

FTFY

What did you change?

[Timminz]

I was wondering what the hell the Baron (a Canadian) was doing saying "we" this, and "we" that, with regards to American affairs.

[zebraman]

The US likely peaked in the 1960s. A World War where your country is the only industrialized one that isn't bombed to shit can really help your economy.

True, but in terms of global influence and power then the 1990's were probably its peak.

I agree - we're living off the fumes of American power or influence if you want to call it that

[Baron Von PWN]

What did you change?

In the original it said you were quoting me, but you were actually quoting bigballinstalin.

[BigBallinStalin]

Iran's constant refusal on the nuclear issue, and it's continued production towards nuclear weapons. (Couldn't get Israel to fix this solution again, and it seems that the UNSC members, Russia and China, were countering US proposals for another embargo--but I think more embargo measures were passed anyway).

North Korea can only face so much pressure from the US with China essentially backing it. North Korea's missile technology has gone a long way in Pakistan and Iran.

But what points in the other direction? Our diplomatic handling of Pakistan was incredible. We've torn that country to shit by turning itself against the Pakistan-Taliban. They're just about in a civil war.

We've established a higher potential to have pro-US allies in Iraq and a big maybe for Afghanistan (assuming Iraq maintains its fair representation of the people, but then again they may be likely to say f*ck Off, US). But at least we got future oil secured.

Our control over oil is strong, pretty any raw material we want, we have it. China can't say the same.

The simple answer being that there are counter influences in many parts of the world now. A lot of African countries would rather deal with China and take their money rather then deal with the USA. Some Latin American countries are really pissed at the USA and would rather take their own path, and slowly are breaking apart from the Washington Consensus and finding their own path (I'm not talking about Chavez btw, I'm looking deeper then that), a lot of European nations whilst still very much pro-America will actually say no when they feel it is very against their interests (ie.Iraq), and central Asia is pretty much going to be a lost land for the USA as Russia and China fight for control there.

On the points you raised; you can hardly credit Pakistan's fight to your influence. For the first 7 years you just supported a dictator who continually funded his military build up against India whilst giving the tribal regions free control. If you really had this influence in 2001/02 then there would be no Afghan conflict. A lot of this may be down to the Bush administration not understanding the region or just not caring, but it took a heck of a long time even after Musharraf was thrown out to actually get the Pakistani military to start a real military commitment in Waziristan, SWAT, FATR etc... As you said in the other thread, the ISI has been known to support terrorist organisation and insurgents in the past (although theres some signs they are cutting back on this and tackling the ones which pose a real threat).

On Iraq and the Sunni Awakening, a lot did have to do with the money and influence the USA was offering to the leaders but you have to remember the domestic situation. The USA had about 140,000 troops in there (not including private contractors) so its hardly a global influence which is determining their change, but they also wanted to break away from the terrorists who has caused tens of thousands of deaths and some significant damage.

Don't get me wrong, I still believe the USA is a hyperpower in a world with no real competition, but in the past 10 years and in the decades to come its position as the dominant #1 is going to continually decrease.

The thing with Pakistan that I was talking about was just us pressuring them to attack the Pakistan Taliban who were in the process of becoming more situated and calm with the central government. We just stirred that all to shit and gave them the money to keep it going. That's really all I'm talking about with Pakistan. Before that whole push into Waziristan, the central government several years before actually allowed Pakistan Taliban to enact their own strict rules in the regions they more or less controlled. The US definitely contributed to this sudden turncoat of the central govt against them. Of course, other influences were at play beforehand, but our money and political pressure keeps the fire on.

But moving on:

Don't get me wrong, I still believe the USA is a hyperpower in a world with no real competition, but in the past 10 years and in the decades to come its position as the dominant #1 is going to continually decrease.

Are you talking about global dominance or regional dominance?

Over the decades US dominance in the world's regions will decline due to the fact that regional powers like China will take more of a role in their local regions and thus butt out US influence. That's a granted, so let's only deal with global hegemony. The Chinese will have the power in their region, but world-wide.. not really, not any time soon.

Nothing challenges the US's global hegemony, which remains overall strong. Are you of the opinion that US global hegemony has been in the decline in the past 10 years? If yes, how so?

[also, I'm not being too clear on global hegemony, so maybe this helps: We could talk about US's hegemony declining in certain regions to be more specific.]

[Titanic]

Over the decades US dominance in the world's regions will decline due to the fact that regional powers like China will take more of a role in their local regions and thus butt out US influence. That's a granted, so let's only deal with global hegemony. The Chinese will have the power in their region, but world-wide.. not really, not any time soon.

Nothing challenges the US's global hegemony, which remains overall strong. Are you of the opinion that US global hegemony has been in the decline in the past 10 years? If yes, how so?

[also, I'm not being too clear on global hegemony, so maybe this helps: We could talk about US's hegemony declining in certain regions to be more specific.]

The global hegemony will be decreasing if certain regional powers can start to challenge it in their neighbourhood, even if they can't compete at the same level throughout the world. China and India will be much more influential in their regions and into certain SE Asian nations (and probably Taiwan, S.Korea and Japan in the long run as they become much more interconnected). Russia has already started to dominate a lot of the former Soviet states and is increasingly trying to get a hold in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe. Brazil will probably end up as the main power in South America as it has re-engaged with a lot of the countries there that it has sour relations with. Europe has cooled a lot towards the USA after the Iraq War and the whole Bush administration and neocon policies. Ironically from what I think the future will be like, once again this just leaves Africa (and ME to an extent) to be carved up by the world powers for competing influences.

As to your direct question, I think US hegemony has taken a huge knock in the past 10 years. At the end of the Clinton presidency, and especially directly after 9/11, you had the whole world (almost) on your side). The French paper (Le MOnde I think) which did the "We are all Americans" headline, Iran cooperating with you and providing key intelligence in the invasion of Afghanistan and pretty much every country (minus Iraq and a couple rogue leaders) offering all the support they could.

Fast forward through the Iraq War, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, the economic collapse, the whole Bush administration really and you are not as influential worldwide as you used to be. BRIC and EU are offering real alternatives to people and countries who want a different voice on the world stage. This also goes for stuff like climate change, foreign aid, growth and development policy, law and order and justice, peace promotion etc...

I'm rambling a bit but I hope you get the direction that I'm sort of heading towards.