AMERICA, WHY IT MAY LOSE ITS STANDING IN THE WORLD.

I think it will slip, but I think it'll fluctuate.

I believe while we may maintain our status as ECONOMIC and Cultural power, our status politically may suffer should we continue towards our unilateral and isolationist.

I fear the world of my planned game http://www.geocities.com/eradicate_98/New_Patriot/Index.htm may come to pass.

In case the USA manages to impose control on the fuel sources of the Middle East, its position as the world leader will be provided for ages.

If the US continues on a course to be an imperial power, our future will be finite. That's what history teaches. If we can manage to work well with other nations, then I'm more optimistic...

Mapleleaf -- my obscurantist response for the time being is: I hope so! (I share D'artagnan's reading of history). But I note that one is not able to vote or is it just my vote that's not wanted?!

We are in an ambiguoius situation. We have so much to give the world, and then if we consolidate control over the planet's energy, there will be no one to challenge us for a very long time to come - one scenario.
Second scenario: We have so much to give the world, but we are so arrogant that people resent us for it. Plus, the naked grab for power, unmasked with the Bush administration (but not invented by it), will make many resist us who might otherwise have admired and emulated us. Meaning they would work from within to destabilize us perhaps.
But if either scenario results in a united world, with a central court and eventual one world government, the argument becomes moot.
I did not vote in the poll.

I wouldn't be comfortable with any of the options listed. Given the resorces, size, and population of The US, predominance on the World Scene would seem to me to be a given for a long, long while yet. The only credible challenge, to my mind, to the currently unrivalled power of The US is China ... and China's at least a generation from any such prominence, IMHO




timber

China is too much overpopulated for developing into a real superpower. Its high density of population is a sheer vulnerability in case of a nuclear war, therefore China will never be a competitive rival to the USA.

D',

Can you explain this in more detail?

Edgar,


Right now, isn't the U.S. at some level of this?

I think we will remain a world power for a long time to come -- but it will be based on muscle, ruthlessness, and fear -- not on admiration, affection, or respect.

Of course, if you think about it -- Saddam Hussein can say most of that himself.

I guess being powerful based on muscle, ruthlessness, and fear has some value -- but I'd much prefer that we conduct ourselves in a way that at least gives admiration, affection, and respect a chance.

I'll second that Frank!

Re imperial powers: Those in the past--Greece, Rome, Mongol, HRE, British--are all faded. Why should the US be different? The fact that we have better technology at our disposal is no guarantee. So do our enemies!

I'm also with D'Art. History tells us that world domination is as passing as the morning dew and that hubris always ends in a dive. The boys in the driver's seat have been pretty clever and covert up till now, but they suddenly seem to have lost their cool- and, I hope, - their mad momentum. Can it be that the "little people" have made their voices heard?

Wayfarer:

I forget the quote about a group of people being the only force for change. But it's appropiate for this.

"I think we will remain a world power for a long time to come -- but it will be based on muscle, ruthlessness, and fear -- not on admiration, affection, or respect."



But so far, not our muscle, ruthlessness (or money) seems to have inspired the fear needed to be top dog. There has been a lot of bluster, then a lot of physical positioning, then a lot of money and options offered - and still we cannot garner the votes needed to show we are on top. We may be able to flatten Iraq - but the real test will come in our ability to trade and maintain an economic lead, and that may be why so much of this whole Iraqi thing seems so forced and unreal, a smokescreen.

China may be years away from certain developments (or maybe not), but they've been wily traders for hundreds of years, and a new leadership seems much more versed in the importance of economic trade.

I didn't vote, but I think America's success or failure as a world leader will depend on more than its military might. History has been leading to that, too. Domination started with who could kill the most the fastest, then moved through various permutations until we get to now, when most of the world is engaged, and the battlefield is different.

If history is any teacher we as did all great powers before us will experience a twilight of our power and influence. I believe the economy will be our undoing. I would however not hazard a guess as to a timetable.

America's preeminence will not last forever. America's power is far from unique in History.

Powers come, push other nations around for a bit, and then get replaced. Look at the previous imperial powers England, the Ottomans, The Holy Roman Empire, Alexander the Great, Rome, Greece and Egypt. (I am sure I left some out).

In time we will no doubt share the fate of these Empires.

The question is when. I would love to discuss our current position compared to past empires, but based on our loss of vision and the fact we are no longer accepted as "leaders of the free world" by most of the "free world" I give us 20 years or so. I think we may remain an important power for a while comparable to England or the Dutch.

---------
"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between."
Oscar Wilde

BTW, I am encouraging my kids to start learning Chinese now :wink: