Fall of the American empire? (enemies, generations, illegal, identities)

[Frank_Carbonni]

Well the US certainly has extensive territory and we have large number of territories outside our national borders as well as dependencies.

So does Canada and Canada has been interested in having the UK's remaining West Indies territories transfered over to it.

I have yet to hear about the Canadian Empire.

Territory of American Samoa, Baker Island, Guam, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Commonwealth of the Northern, Mariana Islands, Palmyra Atoll, Puerto Rico, United States
Virgin Islands, Wake Island

Wow. You named a bunch of uninhabited islands along with a few territories that vote to remain territories and with the exception of Puerto Rico would have too few people to be a viable state anyways.

Oh and here are some Australian dependencies: Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, Cocos Island, Coral Sea Islands, Heard and McDonald Islands, Ashmore and Cartier Islands, and the Australian Antarctic Territory.

And several South Pacific nations are effectively territories of New Zealand. Same currency, military protection, similar flags, etc. I guess New Zealand is an empire as well.

The United States has over 200,000 troops stationed in 144 countries and territories. At any given time, it usually has another 20,000 sailors and Marines deployed afloat on Navy ships. These do not include US soldiers stationed within the US and when you look at the ratio of soldiers to civilians in both ancient Rome and the US today, it becomes quite clear the US is indeed am empire.

You ignored what I said. I said that most of those soldiers are stationed in a few countries in the Middle East or in bases that date back to the Cold War. Most of the soldiers in the rest of the world (which rarely number more than a few hundred) are stationed in foreign countries for diplomatic protection, peacekeeping missions, and training, not too keep hoards of barbarians at bay or to keep annexed nations from rebelling.

Claiming worldwide occupation when most of those countries have less than 100 soldiers on their soil is stupid.

Absolutely we now face a larger amount of asymmetrical warfare, yet we are still attempting to combat this change in warfare with conventional means and in my view wastefully so. We are now spending more on defense (in adjusted dollars) than we were during WWI, WWII, and Vietnam.

Spending more now than during World War II? I would like to see sources. There is no way the US spends more GDP on military expenses than it did during World War II. If you are going for strictly dollar amount, the economy has grown so much more and using just dollars is very misleading. Misleading to the point of lying.

Is the US economy stable right now? Does the United States not have corruption taking place in government or within market forces? In any case, the economies of China and Russia are strengthening currently for whatever reasons, I don't care what they may be. This is not saying that Russian or Chinese systems of governing or economics are superior, I am however saying that the US engagement in several conflicts, declining dollar, and massive debt is driving our economy down.

I'd say the US is more stable. Also, when I talk of corruption, I don't mean the odd case of a politician or high ranking civil servant who gets busted for talking bribes. I mean that it is pretty much the rule in those countries, bribery from court cases to government contracts to getting a drivers' license is pretty much the way things are done. The US is far less corrupt than China and Russia. It's like comparing rape in high school to rape in prison, there is a huge difference between the two.

Is that in order to have a society so consumer based forces another society to remain third world and primitive. It is the hidden secret of the capitalist system people don't want to talk about. Under pure market capitalism, someone has to lose, not all can win.

Heh. The market forces nations to remain primitive? How does that work? You haven't shown how that happens. Basically for humanity to live a completely environmentally friendly lifestyle (at least according to many environmentalists) everyone would have to lose. No computer, no internet, no television, no car, no meat, no movies, no swimming pools, no modern luxuries at all. If that is the alternative to what we have today, then to hell with the Earth. We did not advance so far to live slightly better than we did 300 years ago.

I can find some with a few clicks of the mouse, although I have found it is sometimes easier to let NewToCa or Saga lay into economic statistics as they seem to have a knack for it. However it does not take an economist to see that there are aspects to the average American's standard of living that are not as good as they once were. In 1969 it was quite common to have a single parent support a family 6 on one income. Today that is not so easy. Life expectancy has gotten better but it is also a burden on society unless you can convince 85 year olds to get back to work.

So in other words you wrote an entire paragraph about how easy it would be for you to find sources rather than actually finding them?

[TnHilltopper]

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

So does Canada and Canada has been interested in having the UK's remaining West Indies territories transfered over to it.

I have yet to hear about the Canadian Empire.



Wow. You named a bunch of uninhabited islands along with a few territories that vote to remain territories and with the exception of Puerto Rico would have too few people to be a viable state anyways.

Oh and here are some Australian dependencies: Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, Cocos Island, Coral Sea Islands, Heard and McDonald Islands, Ashmore and Cartier Islands, and the Australian Antarctic Territory.

And several South Pacific nations are effectively territories of New Zealand. Same currency, military protection, similar flags, etc. I guess New Zealand is an empire as well.

I am not trying to redefine the definition of empire, which is not just purely an issue of territory size. It also has to do with influence over territories and other states and nations. If we were to compare the US today with ancient Rome then Rome by all accounts would not be an empire as it was even smaller in size and influence than that of the United States today. In many respects, Canada and New Zealand may be considered empires in their own right, but again, this is about the United States and I tend to also take the position of many in academia who also view the US as an empire.

You ignored what I said. I said that most of those soldiers are stationed in a few countries in the Middle East or in bases that date back to the Cold War. Most of the soldiers in the rest of the world (which rarely number more than a few hundred) are stationed in foreign countries for diplomatic protection, peacekeeping missions, and training, not too keep hoards of barbarians at bay or to keep annexed nations from rebelling.

Claiming worldwide occupation when most of those countries have less than 100 soldiers on their soil is stupid.

Well for starters I never claimed the US had a world wide occupation. I said the US had a military presence in the vast majority of the worlds nations, some more than others but all told, nearly a half a million soldiers stationed abroad. I'm not sure how you go from 400,000 (US gov statistic) to 100 soldiers. In any case, the US exerts a great deal of influence around the globe, something that most people realize by merely watching the news each night or look at the financial papers.

Spending more now than during World War II? I would like to see sources. There is no way the US spends more GDP on military expenses than it did during World War II. If you are going for strictly dollar amount, the economy has grown so much more and using just dollars is very misleading. Misleading to the point of lying.

You mentioned GDP, not I. This is like the third time you have asserted that I have made a claim that I have in fact have not. Please try not to do this, I expect this type of argument from a first year and I suspect you are well beyond that.

I'd say the US is more stable. Also, when I talk of corruption, I don't mean the odd case of a politician or high ranking civil servant who gets busted for talking bribes. I mean that it is pretty much the rule in those countries, bribery from court cases to government contracts to getting a drivers' license is pretty much the way things are done. The US is far less corrupt than China and Russia. It's like comparing rape in high school to rape in prison, there is a huge difference between the two.

You can say that, however I would disagree. The United States currency is dropping like a rock, there is at present a huge trade deficit, we are engaged in no less than two military campaigns, there is a growing class division and almost no confidence in government by the people and growing problems with simple things like the voting process. It is in fact these types of things that lead to the demise of large states and empires as history tends to bear this out. In addition to concerns improperly addressed of the people and a diminishing ability to financially support itself, denial that these factors exist help to expedite further decline. Ignoring problems never make them go away, and when it dawns upon a people in denial that such problems exist, it is often too late to contain them.

Heh. The market forces nations to remain primitive? How does that work? You haven't shown how that happens. Basically for humanity to live a completely environmentally friendly lifestyle (at least according to many environmentalists) everyone would have to lose. No computer, no internet, no television, no car, no meat, no movies, no swimming pools, no modern luxuries at all. If that is the alternative to what we have today, then to hell with the Earth. We did not advance so far to live slightly better than we did 300 years ago.

I provided some evidence and the math is clear. The US has 5% of the worlds population and yet consumes 25% of the fossil fuels. This alone is the prime example of the disproportion of consumption to that of the rest of the world. I cited sources that bear this out and you are free to disagree or argue your case with the US dept of Energy.

So in other words you wrote an entire paragraph about how easy it would be for you to find sources rather than actually finding them?

I provided a good number of sources as well as my own opinions, something I have yet to see you provide other than your own opinions to the contrary. I'm not sure what your premise is here, whether you refute my assertion that the United States is an empire with a great deal of influence around the world or if you are merely trying to argue the sources I cited as evidence. I stand by what I wrote and my sources of information and evidence to help make the case for my opinion and I believe my premise and conclusion to be plausible and sound.

[Frank_Carbonni]

Well for starters I never claimed the US had a world wide occupation. I said the US had a military presence in the vast majority of the worlds nations, some more than others but all told, nearly a half a million soldiers stationed abroad. I'm not sure how you go from 400,000 (US gov statistic) to 100 soldiers. In any case, the US exerts a great deal of influence around the globe, something that most people realize by merely watching the news each night or look at the financial papers.

I never disputed that there are a few hundred thousand soldiers overseas, what I did say was they most of them are either on ships or are stationed in a handful of countries like Japan, Germany, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The number of countries with American soldiers are irrelevant because most of them just have token amount of soldiers which are there for training purposes or diplomatic security and not huge garrisons.

http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/militar...ry/hst0605.pdf

Deployments of the United States Military - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You mentioned GDP, not I. This is like the third time you have asserted that I have made a claim that I have in fact have not. Please try not to do this, I expect this type of argument from a first year and I suspect you are well beyond that.

Sorry that you misunderstood me. What I meant was that the dollar figure is not as important as the percentage of GDP. If you are talking about strictly dollar amount spent on defense, it is extremely misleading because it does not take into account inflation and growth of the American economy.

Using strictly the dollar amount is a misdirection because GDP actually shows how much of the American economy is being spent on the military. And that percentage has been higher in the past with the Second World War and the Cold War.

You can say that, however I would disagree. The United States currency is dropping like a rock, there is at present a huge trade deficit, we are engaged in no less than two military campaigns, there is a growing class division and almost no confidence in government by the people and growing problems with simple things like the voting process. It is in fact these types of things that lead to the demise of large states and empires as history tends to bear this out. In addition to concerns improperly addressed of the people and a diminishing ability to financially support itself, denial that these factors exist help to expedite further decline. Ignoring problems never make them go away, and when it dawns upon a people in denial that such problems exist, it is often too late to contain them.

I agree with most of what you said. These are serious problems, but one upside is that the US Dollar losing value means the trade deficit will go down because American goods will be a better value.

The US is not on the verge of collapse, but it is in a very tight position and much needs to be done about it. The budget deficit would be a good place to start.

I provided some evidence and the math is clear. The US has 5% of the worlds population and yet consumes 25% of the fossil fuels. This alone is the prime example of the disproportion of consumption to that of the rest of the world. I cited sources that bear this out and you are free to disagree or argue your case with the US dept of Energy.

The US and other First World nations are able to pay for those fossil fuels, much which are produced in Third World nations. There are alternatives to fossil fuels and even some fossil fuels like gas hydrates might even replace crude oil.

As alternative energy technology gets more advanced and we look into things like oil shale, tar sands, and previously untapped energy sources like gas hydrates, it is quite possible that more people will live a "richer" lifestyle due to the free market's effect on energy.

I provided a good number of sources as well as my own opinions, something I have yet to see you provide other than your own opinions to the contrary. I'm not sure what your premise is here, whether you refute my assertion that the United States is an empire with a great deal of influence around the world or if you are merely trying to argue the sources I cited as evidence. I stand by what I wrote and my sources of information and evidence to help make the case for my opinion and I believe my premise and conclusion to be plausible and sound.

I think the term "empire" is misleading. The United States is the most powerful nation on Earth and it would take a combination of about the 30 next most powerful nations on Earth to defeat it. There is no questioning the United States military, economic, and cultural power held by both the government and private companies. However, the term empire usually refers to a multi-ethnic or multi-cultural state being dominated by a central authority that is culturally and ethnically distinct from the ruled masses. The United States has a political system that pretty much rules out the traditional definition of an empire: democratic, fair amount of autonomy given to the States, dependencies of little economic value and small populations, and its cultural is relatively uniform.

If the United States is an empire, it is only one in a very loose sense.

[TnHilltopper]

First off, I would like to thank you for the thoughtful and well sourced discussion and refutation of my theory.

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

I never disputed that there are a few hundred thousand soldiers overseas, what I did say was they most of them are either on ships or are stationed in a handful of countries like Japan, Germany, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The number of countries with American soldiers are irrelevant because most of them just have token amount of soldiers which are there for training purposes or diplomatic security and not huge garrisons.

I would still claim that the US is an empire even if we did not have a political and military presence upon the land. As one thing that is almost indisputable is that the American navy is capable of striking nearly any place around the globe in a matter of a few days. This ability combined with our land forces as well as our political presences and influence worldwide is what for me constitutes empire.

I agree with most of what you said. These are serious problems, but one upside is that the US Dollar losing value means the trade deficit will go down because American goods will be a better value.

Generally I would agree but in the US we have seen a decline in our ability to manufacture as I so presented in the piece. If our manufacturing sector was as strong as it was 25 years ago, we would better be able to offset the declining dollar through the better value and volume of our export trade. Since our move to a more serviced based economy, we have forced ourselves to rely more on imported goods for everyday things.

I am of the strong belief that we have farmed out too much of our ability to be self sustainable in exchange for share holder profits. While I am all in favor of individuals, companies, and corporations for making fist fulls of money through sound business, entrepreneurial insight, hard work, I also have to wonder if there shouldn't be some national interest that should be better addressed.

The US is not on the verge of collapse, but it is in a very tight position and much needs to be done about it. The budget deficit would be a good place to start.

I will disagree with this simply because I do not know the future. While the chance maybe remote, it still exist that we may wake up tomorrow to some global catastrophe or international incident, either natural or otherwise that will change the face of current events. Hitler took Germany from the ashes to a world power in 10 years. The stock market went from boom to bust in less than 5 during the Great Depression. On 9-11, a couple of radical Islamic jihadist changed the geo-political face of the world.

So I could not say with any certainty that we are or are not on the verge collapse. As I have said previously though, even with a collapse or fall, America will not vanish from the earth, nor will it even cease from being a global influence, but at some point in our future, I believe our inability to self sustain ourselves will manifest itself.

The US and other First World nations are able to pay for those fossil fuels, much which are produced in Third World nations. There are alternatives to fossil fuels and even some fossil fuels like gas hydrates might even replace crude oil.

As alternative energy technology gets more advanced and we look into things like oil shale, tar sands, and previously untapped energy sources like gas hydrates, it is quite possible that more people will live a "richer" lifestyle due to the free market's effect on energy.

I am of the opinion that if we pursue "green technologies" as well as return a larger manufacturing base, that we can ease our decline in hegemony. It is not a matter of "if" but when we should start pursing this with greater vigor. It will be a technology that is necessary to sustain greater populations and will also be required by lesser nations and the third world, so why not take advantage of this and lead the way instead of playing catch up.

I think the term "empire" is misleading. The United States is the most powerful nation on Earth and it would take a combination of about the 30 next most powerful nations on Earth to defeat it. There is no questioning the United States military, economic, and cultural power held by both the government and private companies. However, the term empire usually refers to a multi-ethnic or multi-cultural state being dominated by a central authority that is culturally and ethnically distinct from the ruled masses. The United States has a political system that pretty much rules out the traditional definition of an empire: democratic, fair amount of autonomy given to the States, dependencies of little economic value and small populations, and its cultural is relatively uniform.

If the United States is an empire, it is only one in a very loose sense.

I have noticed that many people take issue with the US being considered or called an empire and I am not entirely sure why. The US was not given this status, it earned it. Americans have taken advantage of the safety that two world oceans and two friendly neighbors have offered. We have taken advantage of our natural resources and we have devised a system of government that has led to a productive and fruitful society of people. A people free to worship, pursue study, tinker and create personal wealth. These are great things and I enjoy all of them.

What I believe is the natural course of things is that as a society or in our case an empire progresses, it becomes a victim to the faded memories of its past. We have forgotten what it took to get us here and we have been on the top of the global food chain long enough that it has created a view of ourselves that is distorted. We view the world and our involvement in it, from a top down perspective and in doing so we have altered our efforts from achieving a certain level to maintaining it.

We have come to dismiss all those small competitors who wish to achieve our level of civilization as they by themselves are inconsequential but collectively they are a force that must be met. While we watch survivor, there are people in the world working 70-80 hours a week in order to merely own a TV set so they can watch it too. It is disparity in effort that will contribute to our decline as the sole global superpower.

The world is globalizing, we are globalizing and it is through this that the inevitability of our decline as the largest empire is assured. Planet earth simply does not have the resources for everyone to win and achieve our standard of living, some must lose. With the growing symbiosis of the world, other emerging nations are on the rise in their standard of living and our will subsequently decline simply due to the finite amount of global resources and rising competition. While technology may be able to offset this rate, it cannot stop it from occurring.

[ParkTwain]

"However, the term empire usually refers to a multi-ethnic or multi-cultural state being dominated by a central authority that is culturally and ethnically distinct from the ruled masses."


Where did you come up with this definition?

[DC at the Ridge]

Santayana admonished us that if we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. I concur with this, but I also think we should study history with a discerning eye. It is said that history is written by the victors, but I think it would be more accurate to say that history is edited by the victors. And the editing is on-going. Not only do we lose over time the perspectives and views of the defeated, but we lose the complexity and intrigue of history. The Trojan War wasn't just about an errant wife and her lover. Even recent history like the American Revolution is being simplified in the retelling. Did all the colonists support the revolution? How many people were loyal to the king at the onset, and how did the revolutionaries change their minds? What happened to the loyalists who didn't change their allegiance? What happened to their property? What did the English think that they had done wrong? How did the Scots or the Irish feel about the Revolution?

We are taught history in the classroom as if it is a linear chain of events. History isn't linear. Every event is a juxtaposition of other events. History, like the world, is not flat. It's multi-perspective, multi-dimensional. So it's important to understand that if we're going to learn from history, that we're not looking for factor "A" that inevitably leads us to event "B". It's patterns like aacaabaacaab that we're looking for. We're lucky, though, because humans are hardwired to spot patterns. We're hardwired to live them. It's pattern behavior that we find so comforting that leads us to repeat history.

---

When we compare past empires, civilizations, societies with ours, again we need to bring that skeptical eye. History's been edited, and what's missing can be more telling than what remains. Do we know how civilizations really decline? When we point to the moral decay of Roman society, the erosion of its middle class, the fracturing of its economy--is that the pattern or are those symptoms? Did Rome fail because its ambition exceeded its grasp? Did Rome fail because it began to stray from the very foundations it was built upon? Did Rome forget the principles and values it espoused? Is there something that happens when a civilization talks the talk, but stops walking the walk?

I think there are clusters of events that come together to cause the downfall of societies. Recipes for disasters that vary according to the ingredients. Like the recipe for cake, it can come in different flavors, but generally we agree on the characteristics of cake.

---

When Santayana advised people to look to history, I think it was more than just learning from the mistakes of the past. We cannot study the future, the future is a mystery. We cannot study the present, we are the makers of our reality. We study the past to gain insight about ourselves. We need to perceive the patterns, we need to understand the commonalities, what we share with the people of the past, and we need to recognize what's different about our worlds.

How can we compare ourselves to the Egyptians, the Mayans, the Romans or even the Spanish empire? Science and technology have changed our world and ourselves. We live in a global economy. We live in a world where we have instant communication from a remote point in Africa to the scientific expeditions in Antarctica. Even the Soviet empire could not have envisioned the ways in which the world has changed in just the last decade. We are living in a brave new world. The rules are changing. And the advances have irrevocably tangled us together, economically, socially, culturally.

Earlier this year I read an article in the NYT about a global capital flow. There is postulation that this global capital flow when it centered in the United States helped fuel the housing boom. When capital is available, capital is being spent. When that capital flow shifted away from the United States, business felt the taps beginning to run dry, and they stopped spending. In our brave new world we've made the transfer of funds from one country to another, from one economy to another, so easy, so fast, and so unregulated, that we've opened the door to robber barons, to futures speculators that drive oil prices sky-high, to one country's key infrastructures being owned by another country. Like the economic explosion that was the result of the technological revolution of the 19th century, we've got to find ways to control the volatility of this new economic reality. But we've got to acknowledge that it is a new economic reality. We have micro-economics, and macro-economics, and maybe we need to start studying super-macro-economics. A global economy is going to necessitate global cooperation. I truly believe that the Age of Information will have to yield to an Age of Diplomacy.

And that is an opportunity for the United States. We wield influence. We have an economic presence everywhere. Coca Cola, Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Ford, Hollywood. America isn't just a grand experiment in democracy, America is a brand name. We are the captains of capitalism. The fall of the American "empire" isn't at the hands of Chinese manufacturing. It's not the result of the Russian bear posturing and rattling his saber (or cage----did I say that?). It's not the result of being oil dependent.

Our "failure" may lie in our lack of vigilance. If America is a brand name, then that brand has to mean something. New Coke. I think that Bush introduced to the world New America, and the world and many Americans too, thought WTF??? They/we want the original flavor. We want the qualities and values that were original to the brand. Change is not the enemy, but we must be the author of those changes. We cannot react in fear to threats, watering down the civil liberties that are at the heart of the flavor of America for the sake of security. It may be inevitable that America will one day decline in power and influence, but I don't think we're ready to do that right now. I think we can still seize the day, that the opportunity is still there. But if we're promoting the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it's got to go beyond lip service. We've got to live up to our own standards, be true to ourselves and to our heritage. We can't fail at that.

[Shizzles]

Every country that gains some level of standing in the global sphere is going to have "influence". Even today, there is still a British commonwelath, France still meddles in African affairs and Russia is always going to be schemeing to get it's warsaw pact territories back. It's been that way before and will be that way probably forever.

You may cheer the US fall, but it will be quickly replaced. Outside of Europe, you'd be shocked to find just how little market there is for the wishy-washy "Come Together" bull****. Maybe in the future it is China or India. Then maybe Africa. Whoever it is, I doubt they will take as much due dilligence towards the human rights of the people who fall under their sphere as the US has.

Be careful what you wish for...

[TnHilltopper]

Pardon my taking various snippets from your comments to respond to, but a few things as I see as being key to this discussion.

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

And the editing is on-going. Not only do we lose over time the perspectives and views of the defeated, but we lose the complexity and intrigue of history.

Well part of the reason I see our history changing, is not because history changed but our understanding of it through evidence provided by modern tools. 25 years ago, there were entire civilizations in the South American rainforest that we didn't realize existed. Today, with help from satellites, we not only know they existed but with soil analysis we can determine their diets, habits, types of tools they used, level of sophistication, etc... So thus when we look back at prior empires like Rome, the Mongol empire, early Persian and Byzantine as well as more recent empires and civilizations, we have the ability to compare what we know against what evidence can prove, so thus our over all understanding is ceaseless.

We study the past to gain insight about ourselves. We need to perceive the patterns, we need to understand the commonalities, what we share with the people of the past, and we need to recognize what's different about our worlds.

How can we compare ourselves to the Egyptians, the Mayans, the Romans or even the Spanish empire? Science and technology have changed our world and ourselves. We live in a global economy. We live in a world where we have instant communication from a remote point in Africa to the scientific expeditions in Antarctica.

How can we compare ourselves to past empires when times are so different now from then... Well there are patterns and there are commonalities that are inherent to humankind. Man still adds 2+2 today, as he did 200 years ago. Man still needs to eat, still has nearly every trait today as he did 2500 years ago. The human brain hasn't evolved a great deal in its structure or manner of functioning, while it may hold and grasp far more complex concepts and store more information that is relevant today, it is still basically the same brain. In the past, an average guy could probably give you a reasonably accurate sense of tomorrows weather based upon the signs in the natural world around him, just as he could look at most plants and say, that is good, that is bad, today, most people would be dead in a week if left in the woods. Its not lack of brain power that makes man today more vulnerable to the wilds, Its just that what information our minds are processing is different and determined by need.

How does this apply to civilizations, I would say, how could it not. As you yourself pointed out about the complexity and nuances of history that are lost through retelling by the victors and the story of the vanquished is lost. No different today.

While we can't look to our past and say, ok, here is a series of patterns from previous empires and then directly apply this to us, that would be rather foolish. However, we can extrapolate that many of the causes that led to various rises and declines in previous empires can and will likely have a similar effect upon ours, so thus they are quite relevant. Take Rome and the Spanish empires as they were examples I used. They have many parallels even though they are very different in detail. They both became reliant upon external sources of wealth and resources for their health, both had a large disparity of wealth between their citizens at their zenith and decline, both were very reliant upon militarism as a means of securing critical resources needed by their empires, both went through several periods of social rise and decline and eventually into chaos just prior to their collapse.

Could this aspects or events be applied today, I say yes they most certainly can, but this does not meant that they will.

Change is not the enemy, but we must be the author of those changes. We cannot react in fear to threats, watering down the civil liberties that are at the heart of the flavor of America for the sake of security. It may be inevitable that America will one day decline in power and influence, but I don't think we're ready to do that right now. I think we can still seize the day, that the opportunity is still there. But if we're promoting the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it's got to go beyond lip service. We've got to live up to our own standards, be true to ourselves and to our heritage. We can't fail at that.

Well change is the one universal truth we can all count on. No matter what, tomorrow will be different than today. Fear of change is a very tangible thing and in my opinion, it is one of the leading causes of belief systems, mythology, and religious structures. When a person walks our their door, they want to know that the sun will rise, the mail will come, they will have a job, God is looking out for them, whatever. To walk out that door and not have a clue as to what the day may bring is a very frightening thing for many people, the unknown. The cure for this is belief that you know, as there is comfort in this.

People want the comfort of knowing that when they wake tomorrow, America will still be here, we will still speak English, the same blue Chevy is in the driveway, etc... The very thought that one day someone might walk out that door and find that their address is now 1213 Maple street, Palookaville, TN United Union of the America's is a chilling prospect. Is is possible, well go google a map of Europe in 1800 and look how different it is from today. Anything is possible. We take comfort that things will always remain as they are and it is the one thing this is almost assured to never stay the same.

Who is to say that 30 years from now the United States of South America won't develop a superior form of government and economy or some other place around the globe? Maybe it will happen, maybe it won't, but one this is for sure, we live in denial everyday that it is a possibility. In fact, this is one common trait to nearly all of the worlds large empires of the past is their denial of their own fallibility.

Originally Posted by Shizzles

You may cheer the US fall, but it will be quickly replaced. Outside of Europe, you'd be shocked to find just how little market there is for the wishy-washy "Come Together" bull****. Maybe in the future it is China or India. Then maybe Africa. Whoever it is, I doubt they will take as much due dilligence towards the human rights of the people who fall under their sphere as the US has.

Be careful what you wish for...

Its not a matter of cheering for it, desiring it or for want, it will someday happen. The idea that the United States will forever remain the dominant sole global power is hubris and its very belief that it is impossible that things could change is likely to be the very thing that accelerates its occurrence.

Whether it happens or not in my lifetime is irrelevant, as I don't think I will have a great deal of say whether it happens or not at all. Like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog, so too will life carry on indifferent to our petty squabbles.

[dunkel25]

So what if we're an Empire? I don't necessarily agree that we are, based on the historical use of the term, but even if we are...so what? Of course, many of the "empires" in the past would have a hard time actually measuring up to the title, no matter what definition one used...anyone remember the Central African Empire? Even the German "empire" of the 19th and early 20th centuries was never an "empire" in the sense that the Roman or Persian empires were.

Someone has to be the superpower...if it wasn't us, it'd be someone else. Someone else probably far, far less benevolent, I might add.

[MovingForward]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

"In comparison to nearly all previous empires, the United States has fallen into a nearly identical pattern of diminished self-reliance, massive consumption, huge debt burdens, poor leadership, militarism, decreasing rights of the citizenry, and ultra-nationalism. Yet in spite of all these things, we still believe that the past fate of others will not befall us. It is this very denial of facts, and our belief that we are somehow superior to every other nation or culture before us, that will ultimately lead to our demise as the world's sole superpower.

The inevitable fall of the United States empire will not be the last chapter of its history but a fresh start to the next era. Because of our size, our technology base, the education of our people, and our capacity to be prodigious producers as well as consumers, we will not fall into complete destitution. Although the transition into the next phase of our society's future will be tumultuous at best, we will also have the benefit of our past experiences to better guide our future.

Considering the global nature and scale of the world today, I can no longer see a future where a sole empire or nation will come to dominate the landscape. Instead I see a more balanced structure to the global community, where by the next era will be shared between the United States, the European Union, Russia, and China respectively. I also have taken note that Asia, South America, and the Middle East have been moving towards a more unified position, much in the same way Europe has in the past ten years, but in varying degrees."

I see the above as the key result of your analysis. My reaction is why would this be so unusual? Weren't we splitting the power of the world with the Soviets and Chinese back in the 1950-1980 timeframe? I guess if I had to briefly summarize my take on your perspective, it is that the evolution you propose is something I agree with (though I believe you substantially underrate India and Japan), but I don't think we really had much of a timeframe as a sole superpower. Putin has effectively repositioned Russia, and the programs he has in place, as I discussed in other threads, to dominate the routing of oil and natural gas should assure them of being a significant continuing presence.

I think we handle this through strategic alliances, with countries such as Mexico, Canada, Japan, South Korea and Brazil. We can exploit the weaknesses in our competitors, much like a business does. Europe is really a partial ally in this process, but China (poor quality control and repressive sharing of intellectual information) and Russia (great at undermining and intimidation but lousy at management and production) would clearly be our competitors.

I think we will fare rather well if we stop being so head strong about things such as energy and environment, and view these as economic opportunities instead of impediments.

We must come to understand the natural world not just as a repository for "economic opportunities," but as that which keeps us alive and to which we must be stewards. Am currently reading, "Where the Wild Things Were: Life, Death, and Ecological Wreckage in a Land of Vanishing Predators." God, we are the most unintelligent species to populate this planet, since we are the only species which appears hell-bent on destroying the very things--the ground we walk on, the air we breathe, the water on which our lives depend, and the carefully balanced ecosystems--which gives us sustenance. Kill the wolves because they're attacking the cattle or the elk (very few actually, but. . .a common excuse)--like you can just "pick off" predators, thereby significantly altering the land pyramid, without causing major destruction. Did you know that a 100x100-mile solar "plateau" in the Southwest U.S. would produce enough energy to power the entire nation indefinitely? (Although little is known, at this point, of the feasibility of such a plan, in terms of its potential ecological interference.) We have to start thinking outside the box, rather than being petrified at the thought of anything "different," and collapsing into paroxysms of political paranoia (those "liberals" are trying to take down Capitalism!). A few short years ago, people were afraid to buy hybrid cars, because they were "weird." That's the "animal" part of us, of course: the part that is highly suspicious of a change in our environment--although, for us, "environment" means a change in world-view, as well. And that's what we really need: a foundational change in our world-view, an ecological education, an understanding that just because you can pay for the energy to fuel a 5,000 square foot house doesn't mean that it's ethical to do so, because what each of us does, in terms of our ecological footprint, affects everyone else. I might be able to pay for bushmeat, but if I do, I contribute to the decimation of a species and an entire ecosystem. "Katzenfreund" has a great Cree prophecy attached to her posts: "Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten." I don't know how people can be divested of the idea--of the (often vicious) conviction, rather--that rivers can be polluted, land can be "developed" and mined for "resources," animals can be killed--indefinitely--and everything will be fine. It's nothing short of insanity. Only a species so completely alienated from the realities of how Nature works can march forward, and in unison, on such a maniacal path. Education is the only way.

As for the "fall of the American empire," I have a couple of responses to that. First, there is no American "empire." The world builds a castle in the air, calls it America, and then "American Empire," and before you know it, everybody believes it--and we start to act like it. Second, I'd be perfectly happy--even relieved--not to be an "empire." It's a heavy load: we're either saviors or the "Great Satan"--no in-between. I'd like to go back to the way we were in the 19th century (on this one note--obviously, not on the countless other notes that I am thrilled we have left behind)--where pretty much nobody paid attention to us. That would be just fine and dandy by me.