Thread: US influence to decline

^ there is a major flaw in your logic above, you are assuming that China, India and those export countries could survive on their own. If the export stops, then they will collapse, so much for an empire. They become "powerful" because we exported our power, but a few decades of export is insufficient to maintain that power when we stop feeding them. China collapse will happen before the US because they still remain inherently fragile and their growth is based on "superficial" goods.

also, you can't compare the current situation with the past. There is one major factor that didn't exist in the past: worldwide instant communication. Because of this, economic factors adjust much more rapidly and become inter-indepedent, there is no one empire fighting many countries, but ONE global country made of little Empires. Things have changed, and extrapolling history without taking into account a significant fundamental change in the landscape is a bit foolish in my opinion. The 20th century is a turning point in our civilization, like the 11th century and Renaissance have been previously.

Also, proliferation of nuclear weapons and material is gaining speed.
It was a given 50 years ago that only a country in the Nuke Gang would hold sway.
That gang is gaining in popularity. It changes the center of regional gravity.

I agree with Sabang -- except would still give military might equal footing with economic prowess.

Originally Posted by Sakeopete

What do you propose? Should we change our values to that of the Middle Eastern countries or China. I don't thinks so I like our western values and will bet most other westerners do. We will not change but will fight it tooth and nail. If you want to start stoning women in your family or poisoning babies to make a fast buck with no remorse go ahead. It will be a cold day in hell when Europe and North America follow suite.

Goodness, where did I say I'd want to introduce or condone the stoning of women? It was an abstract comment, I don't have anything in particular on my mind.

I believe the hegemony of the West is finally over, a process which arguably started with WW1, the handing over of Hong-Kong could be seen as the symbolic last gesture to end colonialism. Changes in values of Western societies have been enormous during the 20th century, the recognition of the equality between the sexes and races perhaps the most notable.

Values tend to reflect circumstances, and maybe it is time the notion of having to control or police what others in the world get up to, because one is the civilised and superior one who knows better, cannot be sustained - not because it cannot be argued believably, but because it won't be a practical option.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

They become "powerful" because we exported our power, but a few decades of export is insufficient to maintain that power when we stop feeding them. China collapse will happen before the US because they still remain inherently fragile and their growth is based on "superficial" goods.

There has been a technology and expertise transfer which has 'empowered' China, India and others irreversibly on our own terms. Poverty and starvation have not caused a "collapse" in India nor China before, and the possible lack of buying power for their goods and services from the West in future are unlikely to change this.

This attitude is an example of what I just said, the notion of an all-important West essential to the survival of the world is a value which will change.

Originally Posted by spiff

There has been a technology and expertise transfer which has 'empowered' China, India and others irreversibly on our own terms

Actually not really, they still have monkey skills which basically translates into copying what we do with half the quality control, they just can't cut it.

Originally Posted by spiff

Poverty and starvation have not caused a "collapse" in India nor China before,

Poverty doesn't create collapse, wealth does. Those countries have witnessed an explosion of local wealth, an expansion of the middle class, their collapse is what is important as it has more weight on the economy and the multiplier effect than the starving poors.

You're whistling dixie if you reckon China will collapse BF, it is a very stable country.

Originally Posted by sabang

if you reckon China will collapse BF

I said they would collapse before the US would. Not saying that they will regardless. And are they really that stable ? it doesn't take much to take down a giant these days, they are all made of clay feet

But a loosely knit patchwork of associations doesn't fare any better. Too many internal conflicts. IMO a single large country has far more likelihood of being a superpower. It puts it's interests first -- rather than making concession after concession to gain consensus.

And the trend is countries getting smaller and smaller.

Originally Posted by Texpat

And the trend is countries getting smaller and smaller.

Certainly not for the prospective future players.

There will be more variety of power-poles, not just one or two.

China has proved to be very stable and resilient as a country over the years- through many ruling dynasties, revolutions, military invasions and occupations it has always remained China. Their idea of China is that it is The Chinese country, the Homeland. Kind of like the Jews- and it certainly serves to help keep them combined as a country. I reckon Taiwan will end up merging with China again by popular vote, given some time.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

If we want a peaceful future, and not have China enters the picture, there is only one solution: a strong Core Euro Union made of France, Germany, UK, Spain, Dutch, and those Scandinavian countries.

I believe the Nazis tried this and failed.

It seems you are all like dogs returning to your vomit to fill your bellies.

Originally Posted by sabang

I reckon Taiwan will end up merging with China again by popular vote, given some time.

yeah, that's probably the only logical outcome

Originally Posted by sabang

military invasions and occupations it has always remained China.

China is not the same country, I think it went through bigger transformation in the last 20 years than it did over a century

Originally Posted by chitown

I believe the Nazis tried this and failed. It seems you are all like dogs returning to your vomit to fill your bellies.

Sad that you cannot think further than obscure Nazi references and puerile invectives to contribute.

Originally Posted by spiff

Originally Posted by chitown

I believe the Nazis tried this and failed. It seems you are all like dogs returning to your vomit to fill your bellies.

Sad that you cannot think further than obscure Nazi references and puerile invectives to contribute.

Stroller, I think its funny that you zeroed in on it. It seems to be a real sore spot with that you will carry to your grave.

Originally Posted by sabang

China has proved to be very stable and resilient as a country over the years- through many ruling dynasties, revolutions, military invasions and occupations it has always remained China. Their idea of China is that it is The Chinese country, the Homeland. Kind of like the Jews- and it certainly serves to help keep them combined as a country. I reckon Taiwan will end up merging with China again by popular vote, given some time.

China may be stable ATM partially because it is forced to by its leader's iron fist. However as the population continues to connect through digital media despite the efforts to squash free though through censorship discontent will increase especially because of the huge divide between the rich and poor.

Same as what is happening in Thailand as the poor start to understand the power they have as voters. The poor Chinese will find a way as well maybe not through ballot boxes though.

Originally Posted by chitown

Originally Posted by spiff

Originally Posted by chitown

I believe the Nazis tried this and failed. It seems you are all like dogs returning to your vomit to fill your bellies.

Sad that you cannot think further than obscure Nazi references and puerile invectives to contribute.

Stroller, I think its funny that you zeroed in on it. It seems to be a real sore spot with that you will carry to your grave.

Nothing 'funny' about pointing out an off-the-cuff comment which contributes nothing, but it does only seem to prompt more invective and attacks on the messenger rather than reasoned thought.

Your 'political' comments are in stark contrast to the quality of your posts in other forum sections.

Originally Posted by cathat

Take a lesson from Thailand. When Taksin was taken out, many figured thing would get better.
Not So!
Same with America, when all the dissatisfied minds get their way of not wanting the U.S.
as The Super Power.
Thing will quickly go very bad !

So, the Question remains Who is going to step up to the plate????

Russia ! Reveals an Iron Fist.

China ! Remember your childhood story. Slay the Dragon.

middle east ! All will be equipped with a book and ak47.

India ! They will globally ban Deodorants.

If so, in twenty years I will be looking to buy a shuttle ticket to Mars.

You're a new lad on the block so I'll let you into a secret...it doesn't matter who fills the void when American influence declines, as long as it does.

But let's be fair, even our own inbreds agree Russia and or China in the driving seat might on an outside chance be detrimental to peaceful global coexistence. That leaves the ME ragheads, and nobody really wants them or their Caliphate, and the black guys in Africa aren't exactly role models, so guess what we're left with? Yep, Europe.

Now we come to the good bit, because the first thing Europeans do when there's a problem is go into a huddle under the cloak of wholesome debate; this may take anything from a short time to a long time, depending how long before the people get bored and move on...then they come out trumpetting that they have it licked, while whoever's turn it is to pretend he's in charge places a call to over the wet bit.

^

Btw, nice to have you on board, we could use a sensible hat, the other one talks through it at times.

Originally Posted by keda

But let's be fair, even our own inbreds agree Russia and or China in the driving seat might on an outside chance be detrimental to peaceful global coexistence.

Not sure if this would be your "inbreds" in Nakhon Nowhere or who you might be referring to, but most normal kind of folks agree that a multi-polar distribution of power would not be a bad thing, since the US approach of peace-through-war has not exactly improved anyone's circumstances in the recent past.

There you go again speculating on how the world might be if this had happened or that hadn't happened.

Nobody knows sTroller. Not even you.

I'm inclined to think it's MUCH better off because the US is at the helm.

Originally Posted by Texpat

There you go again speculating on how the world might be if this had happened or that hadn't happened.

Drunk again?

Where have I speculated on past events?

Originally Posted by Texpat

I'm inclined to think it's MUCH better off because the US is at the helm.

Sure, that's predictably what a well-trained US military guy would think.

Nice pics sTroller.

Keep 'em coming.

Oh, the US "annexed" Iraq?

Originally Posted by keda

Sometimes I think idiots like you exist just to annoy me.

I am glad to be of service and disrupt your alternative 'reality' for a moment now and then, mate.

Originally Posted by keda

How about an example then, seeing as you appear to know about such things...let's start with the war in Iraq, which most inbreds regard as the greatest blunder of this century, so it shouldn't be too difficult to describe roughly what the world stage would look like today if the US decided not to annex the country.

keda, I think you are in the same state as Textart at this late hours, put down the Beer Lao