Sun sets on US power: report predicts end of dominance

[kskiska]

Source: The Guardian

• US intelligence: 'We can no longer call shots alone'
• European Union will be 'hobbled giant' by 2025
• Triumph of western democracy not certain

The United States' leading intelligence organisation has warned that the world is entering an increasingly unstable and unpredictable period in which the advance of western-style democracy is no longer assured, and some states are in danger of being "taken over and run by criminal networks".

The global trends review, produced by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) every four years, represents sobering reading in Barack Obama's intray as he prepares to take office in January. The country he inherits, the report warns, will no longer be able to "call the shots" alone, as its power over an increasingly multipolar world begins to wane.

Looking ahead to 2025, the NIC (which coordinates analysis from all the US intelligence agencies), foresees a fragmented world, where conflict over scarce resources is on the rise, poorly contained by "ramshackle" international institutions, while nuclear proliferation, particularly in the Middle East, and even nuclear conflict grow more likely.

"Global Trends 2025: A World Transformed" warns that the spread of western democratic capitalism cannot be taken for granted, as it was by George Bush and America's neoconservatives.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/20/barack-obama-president-intelligence-agency

[cobalt1999]

1. Good. Maybe we don't have to spend trillions on a defense budget now.

Also, if there is a calamity in the world, let someone else deal with it.

[Prophet 451]

18. How about everyone else?

If there is some calamity, everyone (including the USA) should pitch in to help. That way, you can cut your obscene defence spending by at least 50%, still be perfectly safe and everyone pitches in on the things that need doing.

[tclambert]

49. Somehow I don't think it will work out that way.

Eisenhower's military-industrial complex will find a path into our pockets. An unstable world makes war more likely, and we'll get sucked in somewhere somehow someway.

[cobalt1999]

60. We only get sucked in if we allow ourselves to.

Frankly, I'm ready to let the rest of the world fix their own problems.

[aquart]

2. Thanks, George and Dick.

You actually got absolutely EVERYTHING wrong.

[Window]

42. Yep. Thanks *Bush and cabal. These cretins have singlehandedly relegated us

to this loss of power and good will throughout the world.

[psychopomp]

84. Indeed, it was opposition to PNAC-pushed programs for American domination that led us to this

Russia/China/Iran/Brazil/Venezuela/Ecuador/India...they all began networking to counter US moves in the Middle East and US chest-thumping in Central and South America. Anybody who could not foresee the present situation as the unmistakable outcome of the last seven years of bush's arrogant, impetuous foreign policy, just wasn't paying attention.

[RedSock]

85. no -- they got everything RIGHT

... according to their goals.

[whistle]

3. Well, "democratic capitalism" never existed under George W. and the neocons

...it has been fascism pure and simple

[Odin2005]

26. "Democratic Capitalism" is an oxymoron

Capitalism is inherently anti-democratic, which is why many of the more extreme Libertarian types don't like democracy and popular government, they want corporations running EVERYTHING.

[WCGreen]

31. that's what they call Fascism

[dee_from_ott]

43. exactly.

a democracy's strength parallels socialism. you weaken government, you weaken government policy... eg your rights. It's simple but contards don't get it.

[seemslikeadream]

4. "taken over and run by criminal networks".

Yes we know


BFEE

[DireStrike]

10. Hah. Yes that jumped out at me too.

It's looking like we're going to need a world government to have a chance against some of these groups, but I can't imagine how a decent one would form any time soon.

[diane in sf]

25. that popped out for me too, BFEE cartel is probably in cahoots with most of the big criminal

networks in the world.

[Triana]

5. The US has been run by a criminal network for the last 8 years...at least. And..

...capitalism is a failure.

[Lasher]

6. Well duh.

The warning was laid right out before us with the collapse of the USSR. But we just had to keep going with defense spending like there was no tomorrow. And just as bad, we offshored our economy. Now we've maxed out our Bank of China credit cards and we're barely able to make the minimum payments. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

[Connonym]

16. that was my exact thought

put this one in the "obvious" category

[Lasher]

51. Priority decisions just got harder to make.

Now what's it gonna be: Completing yet another monster aircraft carrier that's already named after yet another loser Republican president, or extending unemployment benefits in Detroit? If, for the sake of argument, it had to be one or the other, which would it be?

[jeff30997]

57. "monster aircraft carrier that's already named after yet another loser Republican "

Are they building the USS Chimpy already?

[Lasher]

63. USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) commissioned 12 July 2003

USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77) commissioning expected January 2009

USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) commissioning expected 2015 - This is the first of the Ford Class, with two more carriers planned. I'm sure the next in line would have been the USS Worst President Who Ever Lived (CVN-79) if Republicans could have managed to control the Presidency and Congress.

They named a submarine for Jimmy Carter so it wouldn't be so obvious that the GOP has totally politicized naming of carriers.

[Kolesar]

69. Senator Barney Frank is talking up 25% defense cuts

We have to lobby for this. I just need the talking points. I know the F22 is a bust. The antimissile program should be cut back to just research levels of funding.

[Lasher]

70. Then I've got a little more to add.

I would like to see at least a 50% defense spending cut but I would be highly pleased to see 25%.

Please consider my reply to this OP as a talking point:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=259x20404

And be mindful that my recommendation there is just a beginning.

[Kolesar]

72. Establishing a new home port in Florida is a pork barrel gimmick

The governor of Mississippi managed to get reconditioned battleships to be located in his state in the 1980s. It was designed to generate jobs in the area supplying all the needs of a huge warship.

I cannot determine how many aircraft carriers the United States needs. I am sure that tact, diplomacy, and smarts can supplant the need for a lot of our military and intelligence operations.

[Lasher]

74. You're right, that's a Florida porkbarrel project.

Although a case could be made for strategic reasons, as well as fairness, that it would be a good idea to locate one there.

And the reaction from Virginia is also one of porkery. Five, count 'em five, monster carriers - almost half the carrier fleet - is based in that state. Plus they have the only facility in the nation where they can do the nuclear fueling. They have the shipyard where the new ones are built too. Yet they are up in arms because just one of them might be moved to a base in Florida? That's greedy.

But the right thing to do is downsize like we should have more significantly done just as soon as the USSR collapsed. I don't know how many aircraft carriers we really need either, if any. But I can sure as Hell tell you we don't need eleven. And we don't need to be cranking out a new one every 5 years, particularly when every one will be at least twice as expensive as any of them has ever been before.

[Kolesar]

75. The "arguement" for new submarines is that we will forget how to build new submarines

...if we don't keep building at least one of them every two years. We don't need any new ones to fulfil the "missions" that the US Navy has.

There is even skepticism in the engineering professional societies. Here is an article from the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, a society whose members build defense avionics for a living. One would expect IEEE to advocate for more defense spending. I am glad their editors are open minded: http://spectrum.ieee.org/weapons

[Lasher]

76. It can be difficult to defeat an argument that is made on behalf of the M/I complex.

This is because of the enormous resources available to them. Try to reduce the number of carriers as I have suggested, for example, and the AEI among others will be all over you with their full time highly paid 'ahem' juournalists and experts. And I'm sure there would be hawks galore to contend with even if these stink tanks did not exist.

Be that as it may, you could have a fighting chance against an overwhelming force. This is because truth must be bludgeoned if we are to argue that it is essential for the US to continue spending almost as much on defense as the entire rest of the world combined. If others argue that we need to build a new submarine every two years because we would otherwise forget what one looks like, I would want to know what it would do for our memory if we turned one out every 2 1/2 years. If that would work, why not 3 years? And so what if we did forget how to make them? We don't know how to build another Great Pyramid and we seem to be getting along OK.

Another point is evident in the article to which you linked. For $200 million we bought an educational experience for Lockheed. Now they won't forget how to build fighter aircraft that won't work. Even if you could sell that as a good thing, where's the wisdom in teaching Brazilian aircraft company Embraer the ropes at an enormous cost to the US?

[Kolesar]

78. Norm Ornstein at AEI is now commenting on the auto industry woes

On PBS, of all places. Five years ago, he was spreading his misinformation to get us into Iraq. I am quite sure that he has no expertise regarding automobiles. I am disgusted that the network would go to him.

Ok. I have to wrap this up and do some work. There will be a letter to my congressman about this before too long. :hi:

[Lasher]

79. OK, glad I met you. Think I'll add you to my buddy list.

You're pretty smart because you think just like I do.

[Bosso 63]

66. You beat me to it, I was going to say that this must have come

from the "Department of obvious".

[FrenchieCat]

7. Guess the Terrorists won!

[ben_meyers]

8. There is only one hope,

Gort! Klaatu barada nikto!

[verges]

14. Nooo! Obi Wan Kenobi!

He's our only hope.

[Posteritatis]

9. They see fragmentation, the rest of us see multipolarity

This Canadian welcomes it.

Clinton and both Bushes screwed up the unipolar moment. I have a lot more faith in Obama, but there's been a lot of damage done since the Soviets collapsed. If someone of his mindset had been around back then, we'd probably have something a bit closer to a benign hegemon than a rogue superpower today. Or maybe at least a country that's a bit less about thinking it's God's gift to the planet. But what's done is done, so we'll see what Obama does with what we've got.

[silverojo]

19. I love Canadians telling us how we should be

We may not be God's only gift to the planet, but we're sure as hell one of the biggest.

Please, tell us lowly Americans of the huge contributions Canada has made to the world. Even the freakin' computer you're writing this tripe on was invented here.

If you think America sucks so much, then please give us back all the things we've given Canada. Starting with the foreign aid $$.

[Posteritatis]

21. You've certainly got the reading comprehension of your stereotype

Feel free to tell me where I said that America "sucks so much," 'cause I'm not seeing it. I just said - and I was correct to say so - that the US has not exactly proven a wonderful and benign steward of the planet since it wound up as the sole superpower. Or are you one of those idiots who thinks that any criticism of your oh-so-flawless society must mean we hate every aspect of it, or what we aren't allowed to do so because of some real or fabricated benefits? If so, you're on the wrong forum, to say nothing of the wrong planet.

Go pretend I owe you my existence or whatever somewhere else; this chest-thumping nationalistic bullshit doesn't impress me in the least, and I've got better things to do than watch some "patriot" using a flag as overcompensation fail a Turing test.

It's so very cute when people decide to respond to a fictitious post that includes none of the words they're reacting to, rather than the one which was actually posted.

Also, what foreign aid? The last opportunity you guys had for providing us with that was Marshall Plan aid, which we had no need of, and you certainly weren't doing much of anything before then.

[tclambert]

47. Gotta side with the Canuck on this one.

Plus, I like hockey and Ice Road Truckers (hope Alex is OK). Canada is the largest supplier of oil to the US as well. All in all, I think we get more from Canada than they do from us. And the Canadians wouldn't go along with us on Iraq. Russia, Germany, and France not agreeing with us is one thing, but if the US can't even get Canada's support, that should be a red flag that maybe our plan contains a tiny flaw.

(Okay, everybody, I think I got Posteritatis calmed down. Now let's back away slowly. 'Cause we gotta face facts--We've been having terrible trouble beating Iraq and Canada is bigger than Iraq and RIGHT ON OUR BORDER. And I don't wanna hafta learn French.)

[jeff30997]

61. Lol.

When we invade and assimilate the U.S you wont have to learn French.Only about 1/5 of Canadians

speak French so you'll be able to continue to talk in English.:P

[tclambert]

88. ENGLISH! Oh, no! We have to learn ENGLISH?

But all I know is Amurican. Think of the labour involved, and the pounds sterling it may cost. Hell, I'd rather learn Australian.

[Wednesdays]

55. What foreign aid?

Well, we protected you with our nukes. What ingratitude! :eyes:

:sarcasm:

[jeff30997]

59. Why you...

Oops I just saw the sarcasm thing in the corner.:)

[ima_sinnic]

35. "one of the biggest" what? your attitudfe is what makes the USA so sucky in the eyes of the world

quit your chest-thumping, deluded, better-than-you nationalist bullshit and wake up to the reality that the USA is just one fish, now actually a little one, in a big pond.

[fascisthunter]

87. "...USA is just one fish, now actually a little one, in a big pond."

it's become that way because of deluded uber-nationalistic idiots... every country has them, ours needs to be put under a lid.

[14thColony]

38. Wow, my American-invented computer must be on the fritz

because I didn't see where Posteritatis said any of the things you attributed to him/her.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Canadians get to have an opinion about the future of the world political system too.

And...what foreign aid? I can't find any record that Canada has ever been a recipient of US foreign aid.

Methinks thou dost vocalize from thine rectal region.

[eridani]

40. Imperial mass murder is not exactly a gift to the planet

When foreign "aid" is mainly for the purpose of buying US weapons systems, that's not "aid." What does it tell you that our only real ally in South America is responsible for half the murders of union organizers in the world?

[tclambert]

44. Um, maybe it tells you that Bush/Cheney Co. are anti-union?

Oh, wait. You knew that already.

[eridani]

52. Imperial policy in Latin America precedes Bush and Cheney by 100 years

Where do you think the term "banana republic" came from?

[jeff30997]

62. Just add 85 years to that number and we have a deal.

The Monroe Doctrine 1823:

"One of the longest standing tenets of American foreign policy is the Monroe Doctrine, which was enunciated by President James Monroe on December 2, 1823, during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to the United States Congress. It would have been impossible for him to envision that its intent – and impact – would persist, with minor variations, for almost two centuries. Its primary objective was to free the newly independent colonies of Latin America from European intervention and control. The doctrine advocated that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence, for they were comprised of entirely separate and independent nations (Britannica 269)."

[eridani]

80. Agreed. The first imperial phase was accomplishing "sea to shining sea"

After that, you had explicit advocacy of imperialism, and an anti-imperial movement as well. People like Mark Twain, who were fully down with "sea to shining sea" went into an enough is enough, let's not get greedy mode. The lefties opposed imperialism on the grounds of human solidarity, and the righties (Andrew Carnegie et al) on the grounds that an imperial government was inevitably a big government. Carnegie offered to buy the Phillipines for $10 million and set them free.

[jeff30997]

81. Thanks for the infos eridani.

I love History but not only dates and names.Your post is very interesting.

[Zhade]

48. One of the biggest egotistical assholes, that is.

NT!

[Betsy Ross]

11. I'm shocked!

Not really. I have posed this question to others: Can Americans accept not being THE most powerful, important, etc., etc., nation in the world?

[salguine]

13. It's not a question of whether they accept it or not. All they have to do it

believe it, even if it's not true. It shouldn't be too much of a stretch. That guy whose job has been shipped overseas, whose unemployment has run out, who has just lost his house and has no health insurance thinks Amurka's number one 'cause we're killin' turriss' and homa'sexshuls can't get married. USA! USA! USA!

[PinkoDonkey]

20. never underestimate the ability of our fellow americans to not accept reality! nt.

[Posteritatis]

22. I rather doubt it, at least for awhile (nt)

[moggie]

50. It'll take a while

Take the UK. We used to own half the globe, until we lost it. That loss was felt keenly at first, but nowadays most Brits don't care (it still rankles with the far right and the very old, of course). There are more things to life than being Top Nation. It might take a generation or two for Americans to adjust to being just another player (whenever that happens), but they will, and the country will be better for it.

[IndyOp]

56. I am looking forward to letting go of the ILLUSION that America is THE most powerful,

most important country on earth. WE are less than 5% of the world's population and THEY are 95%. We are less than 5% and they are 95%. WE have only ever lived with the illusion that WE can control world events -- much like an 18-month-old baby may believe that they can control their parents behavior by crying, whining, pleading, throwing temper tantrums...

[lessthanjake1234]

12. It just takes a President who uses our power responsibly

We can get our power back. People predicted the same thing back in the 1970s too.

[dusmcj]

15. since their speculator friends aided and abetted its destruction maybe they like the idea /nt

[Prophet 451]

17. Good

Speaking for the rest of the world, we're sick on being bullied and ordered around by the US. Not to say that the US hasn't done some good stuff as well, we'll take the concept of a bill of rights and the humanitarian aid in disasters, for example, but you can keep the "free market uber alles" economics.

And international institutions wouldn't be "ramshackle" if the American right (and a surprising number of the left) wasn't opposed to the very concept of them and constantly kneecapping them. The world cannot and must not be run by one or two nations.

[Sirveri]

23. The world always HAS been run by one or two nations.

It used to be Great Britain with their place in the sun. Before them it was more localised but from a Western standpoint I would argue France before Britain, and Spain before France. Before that is the Catholic church, and before that is the Holy Roman Empire and before that is Rome. Generally transition periods tend to be marked by massive scale warfare for their era. So I'd really rather not see such a transition if it comes down to that.

[Prophet 451]

30. France, really?

Assuming you're referring to the great age of empire building, I would have said it was the Dutch. I'd also argue that you have the Catholic church and the Holy Roman Empire the wrong way around (the HRE being neither holy, Roman nor an empire).

That aside, you're right. But the difference is that we now have a forum where the differences can be settled peacefully and semi-publically (the UN) and we now have the technology to communicate near-instantly on a global level. Additionally, I would argue that, with the exception of the US and perhaps Japan, the individual's sense of nationalistic allegiance to a nation-state is decreasing. In the Mid-East, people often identify with their faith more strongly than their country. In Europe, we may prize our individual cultures (in the same way as, say, a Texan would laud Texas culture) but many of us feel European first and British, French or whatever second.

Every nation that built an empire, that tried to run the world, came out worse off for the experiance. The British Empire was falling apart even in Victoria's day and WWI finished it off entirely. Rome crumbled for many reasons (not least that the rise of Christianity caused a cultural seperation between the central and greater empire) but one of them was because it was overextended. As a world, we can't keep fighting colonial wars, we can't keep saying "do as I say or I'll hit you" to smaller nations. That only works for so long and then they get sick of it and rebel. Political alliances based on force do not last. When your Founding Fathers protested the tax on tea, Whitehall tried to impose it's will by bullying and by force. All it did was push teh Founders into full-scale revolution.

Finally, the past is prologue, not prediction. We can always do things differently and, to my mind, we must because in a day and age when many nations have nuclear weapons and some have suitcase nukes, one nation trying to bully the world into submission is a recipe for disaster. A smaller nation feeling put upon before had to muster an army, feed and clothe them. Now, all they need is a little uranium or plutonium; a flask of, say, anthrax and the same collosal levels of casualties can be inflicted. That should be a powerful incentive for everyone to respect each other's boundries.

[Sirveri]

77. France had a major hold in Africa.

Look at the world map in 1933 and it's basically France and England everywhere, with some dutch holdings in Java/Sumatra/Borneo region.

Anyhow, it's human nature. Greed, for power. Look at the financial crises. Nothing but greed. I don't see it going away any time soon. My real hope is for regulation. But there will be another super power, we might resurge, it might be China and India, it might be global multinational corporations. I don't know.

[Journeyman]

24. Martin van Creveld foretold this in 1999 in "The Rise and Decline of the State". . .

which can be acquired from Amazon.com in trade paperback for $28.99. I'm sure the NIC charged considerably more for their reworked synopsis. Kind of indicative of the problem, if I say so myself.

[diane in sf]

27. Good, let's go from dominance to distributed power.

[JDPriestly]

28. taken over and run by a criminal network -- You mean like the Bush administration?

The United States' leading intelligence organisation has warned that the world is entering an increasingly unstable and unpredictable period in which the advance of western-style democracy is no longer assured, and some states are in danger of being "taken over and run by criminal networks".

From original post.

We've been there and done that the past eight years.

And then there is the UK where they uncovered a massive scheme of kick-backs from a defense industry to someone in Saudi Arabia -- which was not properly investigated out of fear of the economic cost to Britain if they looked more deeply into the criminal activity.

They there is Halliburton. And, I suspect the West Texas lawsuit won't go far, but the corruption and injustice in our private (and public) prison management is just disgraceful.

[JCMach1]

29. Capitalism and Democracy are NOT the same thing...

[dipsydoodle]

32. Additional link here - BBC News.

>
The National Intelligence Council (NIC) predicts China, India and Russia will increasingly challenge US influence.

It also says the dollar will no longer be the world's major currency, and food and water shortages will fuel conflict.

However, the report concedes that these outcomes are not inevitable and will depend on the actions of world leaders.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7741049.stm

[WCGreen]

33. You should read Fareed Zakaria's The Post-American World...

It talks of a multi-polar world that will have three, four perhaps five major players...

Remember, India, the worlds second largest country is a democracy.

Russia had a brief resurgence but that was almost entirely due to the increase in energy prices.

It's not as bad as the egomaniacal military industrial complex makes it out to be...

[Bhaisahab]

36. India's not the 'second largest country'

It is however the 'second most populous' after China.

But I think you meant 'second largest democracy (or what passes for it in the sub-continent).'

[14thColony]

39. If the criterion is population

at over 1 billion people that would make India the largest democracy, not the second largest.

[Hubert Flottz]

34. "taken over and run by criminal networks".

Like BushCo?

[mdmc]

45. yup

[autorank]

37. "Apres USA le Deluge!" What horse shit, on many levels

First the embedded assumptions that we're going to tank big time and that, if we do, the world becomes a chaotic mess are all wet.

There is no consideration for innovation and synchronicity. We've got solar power down cold due to three developments. Even the most screwed up moron, even the Bush people, would find this to irresistible to go for. MIT, a 12 year old in Beaverton, OR, and n Ohio State U. research team did it.

There's no consideration that perhaps there are civilized people out there who are not white! I mean seriously, we're on the ropes with bloated Europe and it's nothing but chaos around us --- because we're not running the show.

We'll do fine if we stop meddling. The "empire talk" and "we're exceptional," so special needs to be knocked down at every turn.

Our great foreign adventures - Viet Nam, Central Americal, and Iraq - all left behind staggering losses and hate for us. So what's so bad for us and the world if our corporate media and elites can't screw things up?

I love it though. These people with no imagination are endlessly amusing. Unfortunately they shape expectations. But screw 'em. Their b.s. is old.

[liberal N proud]

41. Another great Empire consumes itself

Like ancient Greece and Rome and Britain, The United States abused its power and destroyed itself.

[Psephos]

83. It's the end of the world as we know it...

...and I feel fine.

Really. :)

[Shipwack]

46. Most everyone is looking at this the wrong way...

America is not necessarily losing power... Many other countries in the world are gaining more. It is not a zero sum game, where in order for Country A to gain something, Country B has to lose something.

Which still means that there could be dramatic, painful changes and events.

[JawJaw]

53. Power Corrupts

..so let it go

[jpak]

54. *yawn* The US has been run by a criminal organization for the last 8 years

and finally someone "gets it"?

[KG]

58. let's hope so.

nobody in the US wants to talk about the effect of having the worlds largest military budget is fucking up the economy.

[Delphinus]

64. Thank the Universe for that!

Who around the world can look at what we've been doing to these other countries and say they would want our western style of democratic capitalism: our way or we bomb you/cut off your medical supplies/cut off your food supplies/etc.

[sui generis]

65. sorry to bust our bubble but democracy isn't always the best

solution for governance. It has to evolve, not be delivered.

George Bush may single handedly have brought about the end of our moral authority in global affairs, and quite frankly every time we do a cross border raid or blow up a wedding or fire a missile into traffic we are INDISTINGUISHABLE from terrorists. You have to have buy-in and be able to inspire before you can claim to "lead".

All we have is excuses and apologists.

Even the term "dominate" here is inappropriate - it betrays wrong-thinking about foreign affairs and global collaboration on peace and human rights.

[Soylent Brice]

67. even Rome fell...

anyone who didn't see this coming is either blind or stupid.

[LanternWaste]

68. From the Persian Empire to Roman Empire to the British Empire...

From the Persian Empire to Roman Empire to the British Empire, every expansive, dynamic, uni-polar nation-state has had its day in the sun, and that sun will always set.

There's zero reason for me to believe that the U.S. will continue its dominance for (relatively) much longer, as other regions begin vying for their own economic and military dominance, and regional preeminence, while our own economic and military models slowly becomes obsolete in the face of newer ideas and newer models.

I imagine that in a few hundred years, the idea of America's position as sole super-power will be as quaint as the concept of Russia as the gendarme of Europe in the 19th century, or the Hanseatic League's financial trading monopolies during the early modern period...

A time to build up, a time to break down
A time to dance, a time to mourn
A time to cast away stones
A time to gather stones together

[sarcasmo]

71. China the new super power, maybe they can now be the worlds police.

[Pavulon]

82. They are fast choking on there own waste..

toxic soup over there.

[whosinpower]

73. It is sad really

Not because all empires fail - they do, either from outside pressures or inside corruption - either way - they fail.

But what I find so depressing is that the US was founded on ideals that were supposed to immunize itself from the failures of the past, immunize it from colonialism, imperialistic goals. It was supposed to be the best - and in the end, they followed the historical road that all empires go down - so it does not matter if you are communist, monarchist, or democratic.

George W. Bush has one historic moment - that if he was intelligent and forward thinking enough, could of dramatically altered the way history is written. He had one moment where it did not matter if you were russian, chinese, muslim, arab, christian - he had the power within his grasp right after 911 to do something trully historic - everyone was on the same side, - and he utterly wasted that moment.

And we should all be aware that many democracies have been overthrown by the US itself. So - it would be more appropriate to state that the US was/is exporting its capitalism - not democracy. And that is in peril now given the economic crisis facing the globe.

[fascisthunter]

86. Great Job Conservatives!

:sarcasm: