Obama, McCain & the waning American...

[Ma'ake]

Empire.

Item: The addage of "when American sneezes the rest of the world gets a cold" is quickly being pushed aside as our struggles with the effects of a sugar high likely won't have a fundamental impact on the economies of China, India, Brazil, Russia & other emerging markets.

Item: Not counting Iraq & Afghanistan, we spend more on defense than all the rest of the world combined. (This can't help our economic position globally... or domestically. The most recent budget estimates are pushing the deficit toward $800B, or more than 25% of the total budget of $3.1T Who argues this isn't a poor position to be in, especially considering our persistent deficits during boom times?)

Item: The conservative's conservative, Ron Paul, believes our military empire is spread too far, works against our long term global interests.

As Americans we're going to have to grapple with the idea that America will not inevitably be the pre-eminent global economic, ideological & military power indefinitiely. All things change, and just as the "sun never sets on the British empire" was once the proud adage of a previous world power, our role as the world's policeman will almost certainly diminish, over the long term.

McCain represents maintenance & expansion of a most robust American military prowess, while Obama has pushed the idea that we need to more positively engage other nations. Which approach is more sustainable long term?

As for the early stages of a waning American empire & role as the sole superpower, it isn't all bad. Compared to the Brits, we're more likely to remain very strong on the world stage, and even when comparing the US & Britain, all is not so bad. According to at least one index measuring "standard of living", the Brits recently passed us... if only marginally. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3137506.ece

(Granted, our ability to produce & reside in 5000 square foot mini-castles isn't factored into this type of standard-of-living comparison.)

Realistically, I think the future is not all bad, even if our position as the unquestioned, pre-eminent nation will likely diminish.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Item: The addage of "when American sneezes the rest of the world gets a cold" is quickly being pushed aside

our position as the unquestioned, pre-eminent nation will likely diminish.

Take notes, Waters, Cali and others. This would be a foreordained result of electing Obama. This in fact is what he stands for so far as I can tell. Personally, as quaint as that notion may seem, I continue to believe America represents really the only hope for a world that is mostly a sea of oppression, general misery, and premature death.

When is Obama going to address the fact that most of the homocides in Iraq aren't of Amreican soldiers, but innocent civilians, by Islamic terrorists? Is he really so callous and self-absorbed?

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

As for the early stages of a waning American empire & role as the sole superpower, it isn't all bad. Compared to the Brits, we're more likely to remain very strong on the world stage, and even when comparing the US & Britain, all is not so bad. According to at least one index measuring "standard of living", the Brits recently passed us... if only marginally. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3137506.ece

If it weren't for the prevalence of soft-headed PC nonsense like this I'd be a happy democrat. India is a good object lesson. EVERYTHING India has going for it right now--its superb higher education institutions, its representative government, its relatively low infant mortality rate, the predominance of English as its language, its functioning and seemingly even handed legal system, its free market system--it owes to having been an English colony. Similar for Egypt, including its apprciation of its ancient heritage.

(Students of history know that the British East Indian compnay began running India peacably at India's invitaton because India desired the fruits I have summarized above.)

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Take notes, Waters, Cali and others. This would be a foreordained result of electing Obama. This in fact is what he stands for so far as I can tell. Personally, as quaint as that notion may seem, I continue to believe America represents really the only hope for a world that is mostly a sea of oppression, general misery, and premature death.

When is Obama going to address the fact that most of the homocides in Iraq aren't of Amreican soldiers, but innocent civilians, by Islamic terrorists? Is he really so callous and self-absorbed?



If it weren't for the prevalence of soft-headed PC nonsense like this I'd be a happy democrat. India is a good object lesson. EVERYTHING India has going for it right now--its superb higher education institutions, its representative government, its relatively low infant mortality rate, the predominance of English as its language, its functioning and seemingly even handed legal system, its free market system--it owes to having been an English colony. Similar for Egypt, including its apprciation of its ancient heritage.

(Students of history know that the British East Indian compnay began running India peacably at India's invitaton because India desired the fruits I have summarized above.)

When did you decide to become a full-time troller? I miss the old SU.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

When did you decide to become a full-time troller? I miss the old SU.

I think most thoughtful posters here (certainly not those who admit to posting stuff they don't really believe) would agree that I am being consistent.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think most thoughtful posters here (certainly not those who admit to posting stuff they don't really believe) would agree that I am being consistent.

I doubt that very much.

You seem hurt that I admitted I don't believe all I post here. I am confident you don't believe all you post here, so at least one of us is honest about it.

On a few occasions, I have said things with the sole purpose of "trolling." I decided pretty quickly I didn't care for trolling and wasn't particularly good at it anyways. If I post something I don't necessarily believe in now, it is generally because I am sorting arguments out in my own head and looking for a full discussion on the topic. If that hurts your feelings, I suggest you get over it and realize that this is just a message board.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Empire.

Item: The addage of "when American sneezes the rest of the world gets a cold" is quickly being pushed aside as our struggles with the effects of a sugar high likely won't have a fundamental impact on the economies of China, India, Brazil, Russia & other emerging markets.

Item: Not counting Iraq & Afghanistan, we spend more on defense than all the rest of the world combined. (This can't help our economic position globally... or domestically. The most recent budget estimates are pushing the deficit toward $800B, or more than 25% of the total budget of $3.1T Who argues this isn't a poor position to be in, especially considering our persistent deficits during boom times?)

Item: The conservative's conservative, Ron Paul, believes our military empire is spread too far, works against our long term global interests.

As Americans we're going to have to grapple with the idea that America will not inevitably be the pre-eminent global economic, ideological & military power indefinitiely. All things change, and just as the "sun never sets on the British empire" was once the proud adage of a previous world power, our role as the world's policeman will almost certainly diminish, over the long term.

McCain represents maintenance & expansion of a most robust American military prowess, while Obama has pushed the idea that we need to more positively engage other nations. Which approach is more sustainable long term?

As for the early stages of a waning American empire & role as the sole superpower, it isn't all bad. Compared to the Brits, we're more likely to remain very strong on the world stage, and even when comparing the US & Britain, all is not so bad. According to at least one index measuring "standard of living", the Brits recently passed us... if only marginally. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3137506.ece

(Granted, our ability to produce & reside in 5000 square foot mini-castles isn't factored into this type of standard-of-living comparison.)

Realistically, I think the future is not all bad, even if our position as the unquestioned, pre-eminent nation will likely diminish.

Good post. Contrary to SU, I tend to think that engaging other countries in a positive fashion and being the preeminent global power aren't mutually exclusive. Rather, I think they compliment each other nicely if done appropriately. Just as there is a fine balance between diplomacy and appeasement, there is a fine balance between diplomacy and authoritarianism. Too much of appeasement and too much of authoritarianism contribute to the downfall of a superpower.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I doubt that very much.

You seem hurt that I admitted I don't believe all I post here. I am confident you don't believe all you post here, so at least one of us is honest about it.

On a few occasions, I have said things with the sole purpose of "trolling." I decided pretty quickly I didn't care for trolling and wasn't particularly good at it anyways. If I post something I don't necessarily believe in now, it is generally because I am sorting arguments out in my own head and looking for a full discussion on the topic. If that hurts your feelings, I suggest you get over it and realize that this is just a message board.

You haven't hurt my feelings but I think you are calling the wrong person in this thread a troll. To paraphrase goatnapper, GreatBasinUte's post hits more negative stereotypes of self-loathing paleo-liberals than any real person could possess.

Moreover, I have noted that a consequence of sudden withdrawal from Iraq would be enormous loss of American prestige as well as leaving innocent Iraqi citizens to the wolves. We put them at risk, and democrats as well as Republicans were a party to it. I can respect someone's argment that forthrightly addresses those consequences and says he or she is willing to live by them. Not someone who ignores them.

[SeattleUte]

I have a homework assignment for you Cali. It's pleasant. Watch The Killing Fields.

[MikeWaters]

What wars are next, SU, with McCain as president?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

What wars are next, SU, with McCain as president?

I don't know. I hope none, though I imagine he may look at expanding the conflcit to punishing areas backing the resistance in Iraq. A prudent president would at least consider that, in my view.

I think we all can agree that this war was unnecessary and tragic because the cost-benefit calculous didn't support it, and Bush should have known that. But I think that running for president on a categorical plank for withdrawal is foolish. Of course, Nixon did that and it took him six years to keep his promise. Maybe Obama will learn easier said than done.