Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

The United States Hegemony

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» The United States Hegemony

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

The American Empire appears to be over, but the government--and many of the citizens--appear to be in denial of this fact, and continues to push policy that continues to put massive debt onto future generations in order to keep the American Empire in tact. Between the crumbling economy brought down by the banking industry and the growing income disparity between the rich and the poor, it seems that rather than trying to fix the problem, the government is trying to prop up these problems and exasperate them.

Here are some questions to consider. Why do we need an empire? Does the world really need a superpower that acts as a world police force? Is it necessary to have troops in Germany and other countries that pose absolutely no threat, and have no need for the U.S. military on their soil? How are the future generations going to deal with the problems that we are passing off to them in the form of massive debt? Is China the next world superpower? Are we just putting off the inevitable fall of the American empire, and making it inevitable by throwing money at corporations that are doomed to fail?

@Theaetetus,

American hegemony is plainly in decline. There are both positive and negative aspects to that and to what extent this is a generally good or an overall bad thing will likely be determined only partially by the United States.

Bear in mind that decline is a far cry from collapse. Your country will remain a superpower just not the sole superpower. It will simply yield some of its political, military and economic dominance to the emerging powers. Curiously this will probably enhance America's stature with the Western nations, drawing Europe and North America ever closer.

We know our world is going to face several enormous challenges this century and our traditional North Atlantic alliance is likely to become more important than ever.

@Theaetetus,

It seems that the United States want to continue to use military force and bribes to exert control and manipulate governments to protect the United States hegemony. To begin with, it is a terrible policy and general governing philosophy. Not to mention, it makes the future more tenuous and potentially dangerous. Not to use a cliche, but crisis is definitely opportunity.

@Theaetetus,

I think your country is entering a transitional phase, one in which it will ebb (modestly) while other states emerge. The policy you foresee was that espoused by The Project for the New American Century, now defunct. The Bush Doctrine was simply a ghostwritten version of an original, PNAC think piece. The idea was based on a willingness to use US military superiority to thwart any nation or group of nations from rivalling the United States militarily or economically. That was madness worthy of Dr. Strangelove but neither your legislators nor your media rose up in outrage. They simply went along. Strange how that happens in some countries at some times.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;67319 wrote:

The American Empire appears to be over, but the government--and many of the citizens--appear to be in denial of this fact, and continues to push policy that continues to put massive debt onto future generations in order to keep the American Empire in tact. Between the crumbling economy brought down by the banking industry and the growing income disparity between the rich and the poor, it seems that rather than trying to fix the problem, the government is trying to prop up these problems and exasperate them.

I am afraid you are accurate. In my opinion, it was not America's fault, they are a victims.
William

@Theaetetus,

But William, a victim of whom? Who do you fault?

And Theaetetus, what alternative course would you prefer? would you see the bailouts scaled back or eliminated altogether? What consequences do you think might follow?

@RDRDRD1,

RDRDRD1;68299 wrote:

But William, a victim of whom? Who do you fault?

And Theaetetus, what alternative course would you prefer? would you see the bailouts scaled back or eliminated altogether? What consequences do you think might follow?

I wasn't talking about bailouts, I was talking about the Pentagon paying off different tribal groups to quit fighting, or giving military aid to countries to follow our interests. Personally, I would like the U.S. to go back to an isolationist military that keeps there nose out of where it does not belong.

@Theaetetus,

It's hard to argue that the United States hasn't gone too far with foreign interventions (and dragged a lot of other countries along with it) but, as Obama has discovered, getting out is vastly more difficult than getting in.

After establishing such a huge presence in Afghanistan, Iraq and most of the other Stans a precipitous American departure at this point would create some potentially very dangerous and regionally destabilizing power vacuums from the Middle East through South Asia and into East Asia.

Wouldn't it be great if the West's Arab allies took responsibility for tackling Islamist extremism? After all, wasn't the worst of it hatched in Saudi Arabia?

@RDRDRD1,

I am not convinced that China is an emerging superpower.

Given the restrained unrest in that nation, even a slight dip in economic growth could send some regions into chaos and spark nation-wide protest. When a government is so rapt with paranoia that a single dissident event must be wiped from all memory (Tienanmen) the government is in serious trouble.

Theaetetus;68300 wrote:

Personally, I would like the U.S. to go back to an isolationist military that keeps there nose out of where it does not belong.

And go back to what? The policy you suggest has never been American policy in practice, despite the lofty language of politicians. From day one the American military has been used in, for lack of a better word, an imperialist fashion.

@Theaetetus,

The United States of America is the greatest country on the face of the planet.

@Bonaventurian,

About the debt thing:

Basically by pushing down rates, the U.S. government is

1) forcing savers (such as myself) to accept much lower interest rates (because we are in competition with the government),

2) therefore, allowing debtors (such as mortgage and credit card holders) to incur much lower costs for their debts - hopefully saving them from bankruptcy.

So, I as a saver, am financing excessive borrowing, not only in the U.S., but around the world. China is in a similar situation as I am.

The reason, we have to accept this is,

1) Both China and I have no choice. There is no alternative places to put our money, that would not be equally affected.

2) It is probably the only strategy to keep the world economy from plummeting into disaster, since there is no way debtors have enough earning power to pay off their debts at higher rates. Massive bankruptcy and the unemployment that would follow would be comparable to the Great Depression.

So, unfortunately, I am again forced to pay for other people's unquenchable desire for "things" and stuff-and-such. But, I have no alternative, unless I want to leave the human race.

Rich

@richrf,

Bonaventurian;68366 wrote:

The United States of America is the greatest country on the face of the planet.

Yeah, the great cubic zirconium in a mound of horse ****.

My home, my country - I love it.

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian;68366 wrote:

The United States of America is the greatest country on the face of the planet.

The united states was founded by a combination of religous fanatics who wanted the freedom to impose their values on others, greedy capitalists who wanted to dodge taxes and the combined desires of both groups to spread their particular brands of religous and economic extremism west at the expense of the native americans. More slaves and native americans cast their lot in with the British than the Americans. And when the people rebelling wanted nothing less than to hideously repress both groups, you could seriously see why. Sure some of the leaders, like Franklin, were genuinlly well intentioned idealists, but ultimattly it is Hamililtons vision of America that has held most truly.

@avatar6v7,

Avatar, I'm right there with you criticizing the US (although, I would have to disagree to some extent for the sake of history, but that's another matter). We have a dark history: but show me a nation without a dark history?

As far as I know, no nation is without moral scar tissue.

@Theaetetus,

@Victor Eremita,

Don't forget that eugenics program!

@Theaetetus,

Ah screw Alberta. That was f**ked.

@Victor Eremita,

Essentially the same thing happened in the US.

The only government I really like is the Tibetan exile government: preaches peace, human rights, and most importantly, does not govern anyone. Now that's good government.

@Theaetetus,

Don't forget, Canada also gave the United States Nickelback, Bryan Adams, and Alanis Morrisette. Canada is guilty due to trying to infiltrate the 'Greatest Country in the World' with horrible pop-rock acts as an attempt to make the general American more stupid than they already are.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;68834 wrote:

Don't forget, Canada also gave the United States Nickelback, Bryan Adams, and Alanis Morrisette. Canada is guilty due to trying to infiltrate the 'Greatest Country in the World' with horrible pop-rock acts as an attempt to make the general American more stupid than they already are.

I love Toronto and Vancouver. I am so-so on Alan Thicke.

Rich

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» The United States Hegemony

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

The United States Hegemony

Quick Links

My Account

able2know