quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Vince...Is it possible to be THE world power without being hegemonic? I think not. No fault of our own that we lead.. that is what we did to become the world's preeminent power and now that we are should we step back?

As for empire building...where is it? As I've said before we are most likely the only world power other than China perhaps that has had this much power and NOT built an empire.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Vince I did read the article. What I am trying to get across to you is the US is very different then Empires of the past. I understand what he is trying to say... that during times of a domineering empire the world is more stable and better off because the powerful keep troublemakers in line.

This is just another way of saying survival of the fittest.
Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: egern

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Vince I did read the article. What I am trying to get across to you is the US is very different then Empires of the past. I understand what he is trying to say... that during times of a domineering empire the world is more stable and better off because the powerful keep troublemakers in line.


Butch

IMO the imperialists are the troublemakers - however you define that word???

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

They were a formidable foe no doubt…until the 1980’s when our economy beat them… They just could not keep up.

The Soviet economy and the economies of their eastern European satellites never really recovered from WW2

quote:



Bullshit

(in reply to vincentML)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:


We may not have an "Empire" per se, but we certainly have quite a footprint across the globe via our military.

But only at the behest of the home country. We are there at their invitation and lease. Not by force of arms...Very different than empire building.

Butch

quote:

It seem based on the idea that humans cannot live without having some sort of tough rule over them, if not, they will - what?? Tear each other to pieces? And that only violence from one quarter can stop the inter violence that would otherwise arise.

quote:

I do not believe that empires are a good idea, all it means it strife on a bigger scale.

quote:

I do not believe that people cannot rule themselves, I think we started as tribes and still can rule ourselves in smaller units, decentralization is better than centralization.

quote:

I do not think the world would be in anarchy without US leadership, whatever anarchy means in this connection. I think 'super powers' are the greatest threat we have ever had.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

It seem based on the idea that humans cannot live without having some sort of tough rule over them, if not, they will - what?? Tear each other to pieces? And that only violence from one quarter can stop the inter violence that would otherwise arise.

Not violence necessarily but the threat of force. It is an extention to realpolitik on a geopolitical scale from Thomas Hobbes mind experiment in Leviathan in which he imagined that without a central authority man lived in a "state of nature." In that state all would be engaged in a war against all. Hobbes decried the absence of sovereignty this way:

"In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

quote:

I do not believe that empires are a good idea, all it means it strife on a bigger scale.

Realpolitik "refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moralistic or ethical premises" It says nothing about good or bad. Only what is practical for stability as against anarchy.

quote:

I do not believe that people cannot rule themselves, I think we started as tribes and still can rule ourselves in smaller units, decentralization is better than centralization.

Modern communications and transportations that spread cultural memes around the world in a flash have placed the tribal system on the endangered species list. That is a big issue in the conflicts of the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Maybe the central issue against which militant islam pushes back. For good or ill, the 21st C is here.

quote:

I do not think the world would be in anarchy without US leadership, whatever anarchy means in this connection. I think 'super powers' are the greatest threat we have ever had.

Your opinion is noted. Thank you.

quote:

When you say if you are truly 'hegemon' why aren't your decisions final, meaning, I think, that you are somehow elected. But you are not. So there is no reason for others to take orders from the US.

quote:

That to me is a quite unusual definition of the word. I think most people use it in the sense of one country ruling, like the British empire in its days.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

Butch, empire does not require physical occupation. It is built of alliances with weaker nations who seek protection or other favors

A agree but this merging of common needs is not empire building. They are free to go their own ways when their needs change and many have.

Butch

quote:

The article is about avoiding world anarchy through hegemony.



Yes. So who thinks we had world anarchy before US got interested, and who thinks we would have had world anarchy not without it?

In fact, what is meant by that expression?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:


We may not have an "Empire" per se, but we certainly have quite a footprint across the globe via our military.

But only at the behest of the home country. We are there at their invitation and lease. Not by force of arms...Very different than empire building.

Butch

The native americans invited us to move from the original 13 states and take all of their land...What history book did you find that in?
Spain invited us to rule fla.miss.alabama?
Mexico invited us to rule california mn mexico arizona etc?
Japan invited the dewy and the u.s. navy into japan?
Hawaii invited the u.s. to rule them?
Samoa invited the u.s. to rule them?
Spain invited the u.s. to take louisiana ?
Korea invited the u.s. to occupy korea?
Viet nam invited the u.s. to occupy viet nam?
Iraq invite the u.s. to occupy iraq?
Afghanistan invited the u.s. to occupy afghanistan?
Where the fuck did you go to school?

quote:


Economic GDP of $2.9 trillion in 1990. Second largest economy in the world.[34] Enormous mineral energy resources and fuel supply. Generally self-sufficient using a minimal amount of imports, though suffered resource inadequacies such as in agriculture. Marxist economic theory based primarily on production: industrial production directed by centralised state organs leading to a high degree of inefficiency. Five-year plans frequently used to accomplish economic goals.. Economy tied to Central and Eastern-European satellite states.

quote:

Nato was established to meet the communist 'threat', only there never was one, Russia was down and counting with 20 million dead and everything in ruins.

quote:

I second that motion in spades!

Those who impose their democracy, the idea that ANY other man or institution can tell me which hand I need to wipe my ass with in the name of order.

Democracy is institutionalized hegemony!

quote:

The Soviet economy and the economies of their eastern European satellites never really recovered from WW2

quote:

Bullshit

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I second that motion in spades!

Those who impose their democracy, the idea that ANY other man or institution can tell me which hand I need to wipe my ass with in the name of order.

Democracy is institutionalized hegemony!

Democracy and Empire are not synonymus. All government is institutionalized hegemony. Of course.

quote:

The problem for U.S. policymakers is that, prior to the World Wars, we didn't know much else about the outside world beyond our borders. For that, we relied on Britain's guidance, since they had far more experience, diplomatic knowledge, and intelligence about other areas like the Middle East and East Asia. Their empire was more far-flung than America's regional hegemony at the time.

quote:

One thing that seems common of all failed empires is that, once they reach a certain plateau of success, they become blind to the next challenge and fail to see where to go next. All they can think to do is follow precedent, go along with business as usual and the status quo just for the sake of the status quo. That's pretty much what we're facing here in the United States. We're going through an identity crisis where we just can't figure out what to do with ourselves. We don't recognize the challenges that face us in the 21st century, and we've picked the wrong battles.

quote:

The Soviet economy and the economies of their eastern European satellites never really recovered from WW2quote:



Bullshit


I will modify that statement in light of your eloquent disapproval . . .lol!
Make it their consumer economies never recovered from WW2. That was the achilles heal for Stalinism.