6 ms·

I think people from the US need to understand that when you argue that it is right for you to be 'the superpower' you are also arguing that the rest of the worl

by dejb 18y ago

I think people from the US need to understand that when you argue that it is right for you to be 'the superpower' you are also arguing that the rest of the world should be subservient. Can you see how that sounds to the rest of the the world? If there is any schadenfreude going on that would be the reason.

iigs 18y ago
Who thinks or argues that it's "right"? As an American, I think we've been on a hell of a ride for the last couple hundred years, and I'm quite thankful for that. I personally feel do not feel owed anything. I just hope if we're on our way down that we don't piss off enough other countries that {we, our children, our grandchildren} have it harder than it has to be when the tables are turned.
anamax 18y ago
> when you argue that it is right for you to be 'the superpower' you are also arguing that the rest of the world should be subservient. Small problem, we're not arguing that it's right. And we're not arguing that you should be subservient, but we'll get back to that bit of projection a little later. We don't argue that it's right, but let's look at the alternatives. China? Russia? The EU? No one? Yeah right. Speaking of the EU, we've seen them in action. It's not clear that they're the best of that sorry bunch. We all know that if the US announced "hey, you're right, we're just here for the oil, so we're going to redeploy to cover what we need and let you take care of the rest", they'd be running troops into Iraq as fast as they could get transport from the Russians. (They really ought to have some ability to project force.) Then we'll see how Euros run an occupation. Most folks think that Germany is the most brutal, but I've got my money on France. As a superpower, the US is basically a resource. Whenever something big needs doing, the question is "how do we get the US to do it?" If you don't like that deal, find a better one and take it. We won't be offended. We don't want you to to be subservient. That's how the alternatives work. (Yes, I'm including EU and subdivisions.) Instead, we think that your responses when you ask us to do something should show some class. They should fall into two categories (1) "thank you" with as much "how can we help" as you can afford and (2) "on second thought, don't bother, we'll do it ourselves". And, we should hear the second a lot more from the EU. After all, 500M people and more GDP than the US should allow you to do most things on your own. (All that wealth and we had to handle your USSR problem....) Yes, in some ways we do look down on you. It's because you're Monday morning quarterbacks. You want respect - get on the field. Surely there are some problems that you can handle. Show us how it's done. BTW - We know that you're talking smack because you're not afraid of anything these days. We also know that that will change when you are. Speaking of "sophistication", it's somewhat ironic that our subprime mortages had a bigger effect on your banking system. We're stupid, so we're supposed to get conned. What's your excuse for getting taken by rubes?
- jonny_noog 18y ago
  Speaking of the EU, we've seen them in action. It's not clear that they're the best of that sorry bunch. We all know that if the US announced "hey, you're right, we're just here for the oil, so we're going to redeploy to cover what we need and let you take care of the rest", they'd be running troops into Iraq as fast as they could get transport from the Russians. (They really ought to have some ability to project force.) Then we'll see how Euros run an occupation. Most folks think that Germany is the most brutal, but I've got my money on France. You're right, except I think the EU would look at the half dozen or so barrels of oil that would be left over once the US had covered what it "needs" and think it wasn't worth it. Sorry, couldn't resist.
  - anamax 18y ago
    > Sorry, couldn't resist. Since only a small fraction of the US supply comes from the Middle East (the US gets the vast majority of its oil from North and South America), perhaps you should have. Maybe the EU can subcontract the occupation to China.... BTW - One of the advantages of having being a superpower is that you have options like "hmm, if the Middle East goes to hell, we'll keep oil from North and South America from being exported outside of North and South America".
    - jonny_noog 18y ago
      Since when do yanks not have a sense of humour? I thought you people were all chuckles. I mean, post a roundly ridiculous, off the cuff, nationalistic comment and expect something similar in return, no? If you want to get serious, I'm kind of sick of this "But the US doesn't need the oil in Iraq anyway" argument. I'm sure you know as well as anyone else around these parts that it's not about required resources, it's about control of resources, which in turn provides desired leverage.
      - anamax 18y ago
        Ah yes, joke. Ha ha. It's nationalistic and ridiculous to suggest that the EU should show the US how things should be done instead of criticising? Wowsers. It's not so much control of the Middle East oil resources as stability of the resources so those who actually depend on them (that is, not the US) don't go belly up. Like I said, we have options. It would hurt us if the EU went belly up, but not as much as it would hurt the EU.
swombat 18y ago
people from the US need to understand that when you argue that it is right for you to be 'the superpower' you are also arguing that the rest of the world should be subservient I'm not American. Not one bit. Except in the sense that we in the western world are all americans to some extent. Also, although America may not be very good at holding up to its own promise, at least it symbolises freedom, democracy, etc. If America's not the superpower, who do you suggest? China? Russia? America may have flaws, but, like capitalism and democracy, it's still better than the alternatives.
- dejb 18y ago
  You are making the same mistake as many Americans in equating the values of freedom and democracy with being American. There are many other countries of the world that are at least as democratic and free as the US. Nor is America the originator of western democracy. America just happens to be the largest and loudest. Why does there have to be a single superpower? It doesn't make sense and it isn't sustainable. With 20-25% of the world GDP the US just can't do it even the world wanted it to (which it generally doesn't).
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    Nor is America the originator of western democracy Just curious, were there other western democracies in 1776 when America was founded? Or are you referring to ancient examples like Athens?
    - dejb 18y ago
      I would consider Great Britain to be the originator of western democracy. The earliest roots of this are in the English Bill of Rights in 1689. Admittedly it wasn't initially what we would expect from a democracy but access improved over time. When America was founded the version of democracy was undoubtedly a significant improvement but it would have been influenced by the British model. Over time other nations have created arguably better versions (proportional representation for example) and of course the US and Britain have improved their system as well by allowing more people to vote. Have a look at The Economist 'Democracy Index' you'll see that the US currently ranks 17th of all countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index. I personally believe the Parliamentary system originated in the UK is more robust than the US's presidential system. In a parlimentary system the prime minister is immediately accountable to the parliment. Their party (or a majority of parliament) can chose to dump them at any time which means that you are less likely to be stuck with some wack job in power for 4 years. I alse believe the lack of preferential voting makes it virtually impossible for any other party to gain significant traction or become president. The only choice is Rep, Dem or waste your vote. This effectively denies genuine representation to people who's views are different from those a both parties. The preferential voting system is resonable for this but in my view proportional representation is the curent 'state of the art' in democracy.

by dejb 18y ago

iigs 18y ago

Who thinks or argues that it's "right"? As an American, I think we've been on a hell of a ride for the last couple hundred years, and I'm quite thankful for that. I personally feel do not feel owed anything. I just hope if we're on our way down that we don't piss off enough other countries that {we, our children, our grandchildren} have it harder than it has to be when the tables are turned.

anamax 18y ago

> when you argue that it is right for you to be 'the superpower' you are also arguing that the rest of the world should be subservient. Small problem, we're not arguing that it's right. And we're not arguing that you should be subservient, but we'll get back to that bit of projection a little later. We don't argue that it's right, but let's look at the alternatives. China? Russia? The EU? No one? Yeah right. Speaking of the EU, we've seen them in action. It's not clear that they're the best of that sorry bunch. We all know that if the US announced "hey, you're right, we're just here for the oil, so we're going to redeploy to cover what we need and let you take care of the rest", they'd be running troops into Iraq as fast as they could get transport from the Russians. (They really ought to have some ability to project force.) Then we'll see how Euros run an occupation. Most folks think that Germany is the most brutal, but I've got my money on France. As a superpower, the US is basically a resource. Whenever something big needs doing, the question is "how do we get the US to do it?" If you don't like that deal, find a better one and take it. We won't be offended. We don't want you to to be subservient. That's how the alternatives work. (Yes, I'm including EU and subdivisions.) Instead, we think that your responses when you ask us to do something should show some class. They should fall into two categories (1) "thank you" with as much "how can we help" as you can afford and (2) "on second thought, don't bother, we'll do it ourselves". And, we should hear the second a lot more from the EU. After all, 500M people and more GDP than the US should allow you to do most things on your own. (All that wealth and we had to handle your USSR problem....) Yes, in some ways we do look down on you. It's because you're Monday morning quarterbacks. You want respect - get on the field. Surely there are some problems that you can handle. Show us how it's done. BTW - We know that you're talking smack because you're not afraid of anything these days. We also know that that will change when you are. Speaking of "sophistication", it's somewhat ironic that our subprime mortages had a bigger effect on your banking system. We're stupid, so we're supposed to get conned. What's your excuse for getting taken by rubes?

jonny_noog 18y ago
Speaking of the EU, we've seen them in action. It's not clear that they're the best of that sorry bunch. We all know that if the US announced "hey, you're right, we're just here for the oil, so we're going to redeploy to cover what we need and let you take care of the rest", they'd be running troops into Iraq as fast as they could get transport from the Russians. (They really ought to have some ability to project force.) Then we'll see how Euros run an occupation. Most folks think that Germany is the most brutal, but I've got my money on France. You're right, except I think the EU would look at the half dozen or so barrels of oil that would be left over once the US had covered what it "needs" and think it wasn't worth it. Sorry, couldn't resist.
- anamax 18y ago
  > Sorry, couldn't resist. Since only a small fraction of the US supply comes from the Middle East (the US gets the vast majority of its oil from North and South America), perhaps you should have. Maybe the EU can subcontract the occupation to China.... BTW - One of the advantages of having being a superpower is that you have options like "hmm, if the Middle East goes to hell, we'll keep oil from North and South America from being exported outside of North and South America".
  - jonny_noog 18y ago
    Since when do yanks not have a sense of humour? I thought you people were all chuckles. I mean, post a roundly ridiculous, off the cuff, nationalistic comment and expect something similar in return, no? If you want to get serious, I'm kind of sick of this "But the US doesn't need the oil in Iraq anyway" argument. I'm sure you know as well as anyone else around these parts that it's not about required resources, it's about control of resources, which in turn provides desired leverage.
    - anamax 18y ago
      Ah yes, joke. Ha ha. It's nationalistic and ridiculous to suggest that the EU should show the US how things should be done instead of criticising? Wowsers. It's not so much control of the Middle East oil resources as stability of the resources so those who actually depend on them (that is, not the US) don't go belly up. Like I said, we have options. It would hurt us if the EU went belly up, but not as much as it would hurt the EU.

swombat 18y ago

people from the US need to understand that when you argue that it is right for you to be 'the superpower' you are also arguing that the rest of the world should be subservient I'm not American. Not one bit. Except in the sense that we in the western world are all americans to some extent. Also, although America may not be very good at holding up to its own promise, at least it symbolises freedom, democracy, etc. If America's not the superpower, who do you suggest? China? Russia? America may have flaws, but, like capitalism and democracy, it's still better than the alternatives.

dejb 18y ago
You are making the same mistake as many Americans in equating the values of freedom and democracy with being American. There are many other countries of the world that are at least as democratic and free as the US. Nor is America the originator of western democracy. America just happens to be the largest and loudest. Why does there have to be a single superpower? It doesn't make sense and it isn't sustainable. With 20-25% of the world GDP the US just can't do it even the world wanted it to (which it generally doesn't).
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  Nor is America the originator of western democracy Just curious, were there other western democracies in 1776 when America was founded? Or are you referring to ancient examples like Athens?
  - dejb 18y ago
    I would consider Great Britain to be the originator of western democracy. The earliest roots of this are in the English Bill of Rights in 1689. Admittedly it wasn't initially what we would expect from a democracy but access improved over time. When America was founded the version of democracy was undoubtedly a significant improvement but it would have been influenced by the British model. Over time other nations have created arguably better versions (proportional representation for example) and of course the US and Britain have improved their system as well by allowing more people to vote. Have a look at The Economist 'Democracy Index' you'll see that the US currently ranks 17th of all countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index. I personally believe the Parliamentary system originated in the UK is more robust than the US's presidential system. In a parlimentary system the prime minister is immediately accountable to the parliment. Their party (or a majority of parliament) can chose to dump them at any time which means that you are less likely to be stuck with some wack job in power for 4 years. I alse believe the lack of preferential voting makes it virtually impossible for any other party to gain significant traction or become president. The only choice is Rep, Dem or waste your vote. This effectively denies genuine representation to people who's views are different from those a both parties. The preferential voting system is resonable for this but in my view proportional representation is the curent 'state of the art' in democracy.