What will be the end of the world as we know it?

[[PCE]el_Prez]

The Russkies werent as powerfull as us during the cold war. As much as we feared them, they feared us more. Besdies the fact that they only became a superpower cause we bailed them out. Hitler put a nasty hurt on them while fighting a 2 front war. Imagine if Hitler decided to concentrate his forces on the Soviets from the beginning...They'd be speaking german right now. Anyways, I know as well as the rest of you that im right. The US will go down one of these days? Seems like wishfull thinking than anything.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

el_Prez]The Russkies werent as powerfull as us during the cold war. As much as we feared them, they feared us more. Besdies the fact that they only became a superpower cause we bailed them out. Hitler put a nasty hurt on them while fighting a 2 front war. Imagine if Hitler decided to concentrate his forces on the Soviets from the beginning...They'd be speaking german right now. Anyways, I know as well as the rest of you that im right. The US will go down one of these days? Seems like wishfull thinking than anything.

ok, that's total BS.

firstly, Soviets stopped German advancement with staggering losses long before western front was even opened, so there is really no way USA can be credited for "bailing out" the "Russkies". before you start giving history-based arguments, familiarize yourself with European history a little. Hitler never fought a two-front war until 1944., and the only reason why western front could be opened (June.Normandy.remember?) was because Germans were already losing on the east.

secondly, whole discussion on who feared who more during Cold War is totally pointless. both USA and USSR had enough nuclear weapons to destroy entire planet, not once, but several times. in case of a war both countries would be annihilated, and their leaders were aware of it. just think about the 1962. crisis - both Kennedy and Hruscov KNEW war between USA and USSR had to avoided, because there would be NO winners in it. if you can't learn from history, then learn from Fallout. according to its scenario, USA was by all means more powerful than hostile China - and yet, would you say that they won the war?

finally, no sane person "wishes" USA to go down. personally, i'd rather have US dominance in the world than that of some expansionist dictatorship, like Nazi Germany or USSR. but anyway, you know as well as the rest of us that fall of USA is inevitable. ancient Latins didn't say in vain "Historia est magistra vitae". history is indeed the teacher of life, and instead of learning from it, incompetent US leadership (led by the dumbass Bush...why can't american presidents be elected more than twice? Clinton may have been a dishonorable pig, but at least he was very capable and competent) repeats the same mistakes made by so many other historical leaders. the only difference between USA and old empires is the fact that USA is a democratic country, and even this democracy, once firm and shiny, is slowly deteriorating, as current American leadership does everything to limit civil rights and constantly keeps arbitrating the Constitution. department of homeland security is just the first step in long path of turning the "sweet land of liberty" into a totalitarian Big Brother police state, a kind of country that is hostile to its neighbours, but even more hostile to its own citizens. such country simply cannot maintain its power and its fall is inevitable. again, if you don't believe me, familiarize yourself with history.

 

[Gwydion]

What is Bush doing so differenty from Clinton, aside from internal policies, Ratty?

 

[welsh]

It's the end of the world.

Gosh this is interesting.

I think the book you might be considering, Kharn, is the Jack Snyder's Myth of Empire, which makes an argument for imperial overstretch. Of course the problem with the concept is that you really don't know you are in overstretch until you get smacked down. For instance, arguably the US overstretched into Vietnam but probably not the Philippines, and definitely not for Hawaii.

Is the US overstretching now? Maybe. The problem with the current policy is that the US has historically followed a more indirect policy (for example the English used direct empire over colonies, but also could manipulate South America states through control of capital). It's definitely worrisome. My personal feelings were that Iraq was more a case of finishing up old business and attached problems than a prolonged drive towards empire directed towards oil control. Before the war, the US was stuck with three choices: keep the sanctions indefinitely, end the sanctions, or end Saddam. The first was becoming unviable. that left only the third.

Oil will be essential for the developed states of the West (Europe included) and US policies in Central Asia indicate that oil is playing a major part in that business as well. Great powers go where their strategic interests lie. Right now, those interests include secure access to certain essential valaubles.

US-French issues on Iraq may go back as far as the 1990s and may have to do with US incursions on what France has seen as its overseas empire. For example, the French deployed troops to protect the Hutus after the Rawandian genocide while the US supported the Tutsi's in their bid to place Kabile as head of Congo. But both countries may be playing for control of minerals, primarily from Congo's Katanga province. SO the French are ready to piss and moan about Iraq because that's their old empire and the US is taking it away.

There is a theory that Saddam Hussein has been dead for quite awhile, taken out during the Clinton years. The problem is that the Baath party and his sons used the Saddam look-alikes to maintain the illusion of Saddam as leader, and thus forcing US intervention to get rid of the sons and replacing the party itself. Crazy conspiracy theory? I heard this from a prior US Army intel person.

As for the US and Russia. I agree that the US was not the most powerful control for 200 years. But, by the turn of the 19th Century, the US was economically outperforming most of the countries of the world, even if it took a world war to become a great power, and a second world war to force the US to take that role. After that the US pretty much remade the world in the image that it wanted. That's quite an accomplishment.

While the US and the USSR did square off militarily and could have destroyed each other, the cost of this to the Soviets far exceeded that to the US. Indeed, at the start of the Cold War the US had taken a policy of containment and except for the spread of Soviet ideology, they did little to break free. While the Soviets definitely had the ability to nuke the US off the face of the world, they were definitely the weaker of the two countries during the duration of the Cold War.

Not for nothing, the USSR did a heck of a job. Surviving World War 2 and rebuilding so damn fast that they rivaled the US in space and military tech, illustrates that the political and economic system of the US is not invulnerable to a different system.

Oh, and we can safely say that World War 2 was won in the factories of the United States and battlefields of Russia. Not to deny the bravery or success of the US in the field, but by 1944 the Germans were losing. Its a good thing that the US got in when it did, or much of Europe would probably have gone to the other side of the iron curtain.

Will the US eventually fade away, yes. To the Chinese? I doubt it. The Chinese may be growing at 10% while the US grows at 3% but the US GNP so far out weighs the Chinese that the US will retain its edge for a long time. Furthermore the Chinese system has more than a few kinks, one being a clumbersome party apparatus.

Whether the US fails or not will depend, in the end, on its ability to innovate and evolve, to adjust to the changes and recreate itself on a regular basis. The conservativism, tax breaks to the wealthy, decline in public education, and failure to reignite the economy is not the way to go. SOmetimes it seems that virtually every progressive advance of the last 30 years has been pissed away by the Republicans. Remember Bush didn't win the popular vote and I have doubts he will next time either. There are lots of people being turned off and the economy isn't helping. Even the Supreme Court's recent rulings seem to indicate that conservatism is reaching the end of the line. I am hoping that when the pendulum swings the other way, the US will be on better footing to sustain its global position, and maybe make a better world, in the new century.

The End of the World? That's great it starts with an earthquake....
Throughout history people have been forcasting the end of the world. It hasn't happened yet. Nuclear War came very close in the Cuban Missile Crisis and in '73 so yes, we have the ability to snuff ourselves out. But we probably won't come that close for awhile.

Human beings are pretty resilient. Even if there would come a breakdown of the current economic system, a new medieval age, I think we'd pretty much survive it. Overpopulation and depletion of resources? Congo alone has the ability to provide 13% of the world's electricity through hydroelectrical dams. Enough juice to light up all of Africa. The US produces enough grain to feed the world several times.

The Trilateral Commission? I thought it was the Free Masons, the Council on Foreign Relations? Or was it the Knight Templars? Let's not be too silly with conspiracy.

 

[Brother None]

firstly, Soviets stopped German advancement with staggering losses long before western front was even opened, so there is really no way USA can be credited for "bailing out" the "Russkies". before you start giving history-based arguments, familiarize yourself with European history a little. Hitler never fought a two-front war until 1944., and the only reason why western front could be opened (June.Normandy.remember?) was because Germans were already losing on the east.

Fact: 2/3 of the German army fought on the Russian front all through WW 2. Don't even begin on the Americans bailing the Russians out, if anything, it was vice versa. And 6 Russians died to every German, I wish the West (especially Europeans) would learn to bloody appreciate these losses rather than sneer at their own saviours.

Also, Prez, what you're saying is bullshit, as Ratty pointed out, but it's also kind of besides the point. Russia was on par with the US in a lot of ways, though not exactly on par, 'course not. But the main point is; America hasn't been the Supreme World Power for long and there's no way in hell it's going to remain it.

What is Bush doing so differenty from Clinton, aside from internal policies, Ratty?

Bush is:

1. Alienating the Europeans quickening the build of the EU, talk about digging your own grave.

2. Not doing anything relevant about an economic recession. "Trickle economics"/Reagenomics, though they've been proven to work are NOT the best way of dealing with a recession, and to start putting big money into foreign investments during hard times is as good as suicide. True, Clinton didn't have these troubles, and true, this is an internal policy, but it is relevant for the collapse of the US.

3. "Over-stretch". Clinton didn't declare war left and right, nor did he put huge sums of money into defense.

PS: Ratty, the USA isn't the first democratic world power to collapse. Europe was democratic, yet it collapsed. Athens had a far superior democraticd system, yet it collapsed.

I'm not saying I'm glad to see the USA go either, but fact of the matter is that it will.

 

[Brother None]

Re: It's the end of the world.

Welsh! It's a tremendous pleasure to see you join in this discussion.

I think the book you might be considering, Kharn, is the Jack Snyder's Myth of Empire, which makes an argument for imperial overstretch. Of course the problem with the concept is that you really don't know you are in overstretch until you get smacked down. For instance, arguably the US overstretched into Vietnam but probably not the Philippines, and definitely not for Hawaii.

That might be the one, I'm not sure. And you'tre right there, of course, you can't truly be sure when over-stretch is occuring, but you can look into trying to avoid it.

As for the US and Russia. I agree that the US was not the most powerful control for 200 years. But, by the turn of the 19th Century, the US was economically outperforming most of the countries of the world, even if it took a world war to become a great power, and a second world war to force the US to take that role. After that the US pretty much remade the world in the image that it wanted. That's quite an accomplishment.

Part of the World, pretty much everything non-communist, but the communists owned a huge part of the world.

While the US and the USSR did square off militarily and could have destroyed each other, the cost of this to the Soviets far exceeded that to the US. Indeed, at the start of the Cold War the US had taken a policy of containment and except for the spread of Soviet ideology, they did little to break free. While the Soviets definitely had the ability to nuke the US off the face of the world, they were definitely the weaker of the two countries during the duration of the Cold War.

Yes, but the point was not to show the two countries as being exactly on par, the fact is that Russia was a Dominant Power. You can't say "the US was thé Dominant Power throughout the Cold War", that would not be true. There were two Dominant Powers, namely the US and the USSR.

Will the US eventually fade away, yes. To the Chinese? I doubt it. The Chinese may be growing at 10% while the US grows at 3% but the US GNP so far out weighs the Chinese that the US will retain its edge for a long time. Furthermore the Chinese system has more than a few kinks, one being a clumbersome party apparatus.

I'm talking a century here, possibly centuries, if the US watches its step, but I doubt it. In 50 years, chances are the world won't look anything like it looks now.

Whether the US fails or not will depend, in the end, on its ability to innovate and evolve, to adjust to the changes and recreate itself on a regular basis. The conservativism, tax breaks to the wealthy, decline in public education, and failure to reignite the economy is not the way to go. SOmetimes it seems that virtually every progressive advance of the last 30 years has been pissed away by the Republicans. Remember Bush didn't win the popular vote and I have doubts he will next time either. There are lots of people being turned off and the economy isn't helping. Even the Supreme Court's recent rulings seem to indicate that conservatism is reaching the end of the line. I am hoping that when the pendulum swings the other way, the US will be on better footing to sustain its global position, and maybe make a better world, in the new century.

Heh, innovation is great, yeah. If it would prevent the fall of an empire I don't know, but I also doubt the US will be able to be sufficiently innovate, few humans ever do. Democracy helps that way, though, but stupidity halts it.

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

1. Germany invaded France (April 10, 1940) and fought an air war w/ Brittain both to the west of Germany; and invaded poland (Sep. 1, 1939) and went on into Russia east of Germany. Now i might not be the smartest man in the world... (obviously you both agree with that statement) but i count 2 fronts. Also, Patton was kicking Kraut ass in Africa as early as 1941. Now MAYBE europe had a small chance of defeating Germany by themselves. However if Hitler had ingnored the eastern front and concentrated his forces on the wester front... the russians would have fell. After the Soviets were extinguished, The nazis could probably take out the rest of Europe pretty easily.


2. Ok fine, if your so fucking sure that I'm wrong about the US ruling Forever, give me some hard evidence on why, when or how they will fall.... and not just "it happed before to other people so it will probably happen to the US".



(east/west, you know what i mean)

 

[Loxley]

The germans would not have over sovjet anyway. The reason is that in the power struggle that germany would have to go through to subdue and conrtol all of western europe he would lose large amount of forces, blitzkrieg is not cheap. The germans could not have managed to go any further than they did. Because they were already overstreching their forces in 1942, stalingrad was a mistake as we all know.

By 1943 the Sovjet forces was already in a much better shape then the germans and how the germans was supposed to continue to dig even deeper into sovjet while holding those wast land from one end of europe to the other with huge resistance groupes all over, i don't know?

"Russia west of Germany" I presume you mean east of germany, you have to go pretty far west from germany to reach russia.

HItler never had a chance unless he could have fought one enemy at the time. Soviet was to deep for any military force to invade it or to controle it. Still is.

 

[welsh]

well Prez

Well, first you have to watch your geography. France and Britain are to the West of Europe (which is why West German, France, England, etc. are called Western Europe). Poland, Russia, Czech and Slovak republics are to the East (thus Eastern Europe).

You are right that there are two fronts, in fact you could count more. But the Western Front (France) is more or less out after Germany defeats France, 1940, and the US -England-Canada-Free French invade in 1944. Between that time most of the heavy fighting is taking place in the East. Even the Battle of Britian, by all accounts a brave and desperate affair, is minor compared to such battles as Krusk, the seige of Leningrad, the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad, generally considered the turning point of the war.

But its not just a two front war (meaning France and Russia). The US and England fought in North Africa, as you point out. IN fact the Battle of El Alemain is the other turning point of the war, in which German forces in the North African desert are defeated from the capture of Egypt and threatening colonial interests in the Middle East. But the Battle of El Alemain comes before the US invasion (Torch) that led to the 'liberation' of Vichy France's North African territories. True Patton kicks Kraut ass in North Africa, but only after the Germans give us whoop ass at Kaserine Pass (I saw Patton too). However, by that time, the battle has turned against the Germans. If you want to include a Southern front, that included Yugoslavia (Partisans vs. Axis) and Italy (a very international group vs. Axis) those battles happen only after the tide has turned and serve more as a means to draw soldiers away from the main fight in East Europe. The Battle of the Atlantic is also happening but I guess you might call that part of the Western Front.

Stephen Ambrose is fairly alone among historians in calling D-Day the turning point of the war. Not to downplay the role of the US. The US fought many significant battles and did very well against the Germans. In the West, the germans found the US to be Blitzkrieg in reverse. But the Germans also did fairly well against the Americans. The landing in Sciliy succeed because the Germans are withdrawing and do so very well. The US almost loses in Salerno but are rescued by the Brits and then the US gets held up at Casino and the Anzio landing almost turn into a disaster.

But the major actions are happening to the East. Most of Germany's soldiers are going to the dreaded Eastern Front. They lose an entire army in Stalingrad and that's just the beginning.

You make a good point. Had Germany not concentrated on France and England earlier, Russia might have fallen. Indeed, had the Germans not been delayed they might have been successful in capturing Moscow and perhaps ending the war as Moscow was a nerve center of Russia. In fact, the Germans come very close to winning again the next year, but distract themselves in Stalingrad. But the fall of France is not that significant a distraction. More pressing are the Italian adventures in Yugoslavia and the battles for Greece which delay the eventual launch of Operation Barbarossa, and thus allow the Russians time as winter sets in.

The Germans were worried about another two front war and are basically successful in knocking France out of the war. Britian alone could not have invaded from the West, and even the battles of Africa are not taking up that significant a force as is deployed against Russia. And the Allies delay the invasion of France. According to Stalin, this was so that more war casualities would take place in the East than in the West. The success of the Allied front in Western Europe is in part the consequence of air superiority (credit US factories), war materials (it took 4 Shermans to knock out 1 Tiger) and the weakness of German forces.

Ok, as to the end of the US. No one can really forecast the end of US dominance. Truthfully, even with the current administration, US dominance will probably last well into this century. But that every major power has risen and declined is a pretty good indicator that things will not always be so. In fact, if you look comparatively, other countries have shown remarkable advances in quality of life, education, GNP per capital and GDP in comparison to the US. By all indicators if the US is, in absolute terms, dominant, it has fallen relative to others.

There are books on this. Kennedy's Rise and Decline of Great Powers, Olson's Rise and Decline of Nations, works by Kindelberger, etc. The reasons are that dominance and hegemony, is expensive. To be a dominant power is to spend money on maintaining that dominance (keeping the world secure, providing credit), while other states are allowed to free-ride at your expense until they reach a point of near parity. You can't skimp at the end of the day (although the US has articulated a policy of burden sharing on its allies since the 1980s). Even with US unilateralism, a desire not to get caught up with what is perceived to be an expensive and wasteful multilaterialism, the US will still play a role in maintaing the UN (a creature of mostly US creation).

What happens is that eventually a country can't carry those expenses and either one or a group of states are able to surpass it. Sometimes that's a violent change, other times (arguably the transfer of British to US leadership) it is peaceful.

The other reason also comes down to costs. Institutions are expensive to build, and once built are expensive to change or even tear down. NATO for instance is an institution that has outlived its purpose and searches for a new mission. But institutionalized rules are often hard to change, and change is sometimes necessary. Thus the dominant power, caught up in maintaining a set of rules, may not be able to change and adjust to the rising upstart.

If you want harder evidence, consider some aspects of US policy. Currently US enjoys a unilateral moment, and what it does with this moment will shape its future. That Bush has taken the US from a period where the world was very supportive of the US (right after 9-11) to a point where much of the world condemns the US (after Iraq) raises questions about US leadership. But lets go back. Dropping off the Gold Standard, rescession during the 1970s, detente with the Soviets, and inability to deal with the oil shocks all reflected US weaknesses even at a point of great leadership. It could happen again.

The error of the US might be that there are no limits to its power. This idea was sorely tested in Vietnam, where the defeat came not on the battlefield, but at home, in the weaknesses of the US political and social system. SO yes, there could be a time of US weakness and power transition.

Are such periods likely to happen. Of course. Under the right conditions other states may be able to surpass us. Fears of rising China are an example of that, but also tensions with the EU over policies. The desire to unify the markets of North and South America are in part a response to the EU's expansion east, just as NAFTA was, in part, a response to the EU.

Understandably, the US will not be surpassed for a long time. Eventually, perhaps, but not for awhile. And it can be argued that the free world has done well under US leadership. It has decolonized, created viable and effective international institutions, fostered a hegemonic ideology based on civil rights, helped spread democracy and turned back a very power totalitarian threat. Have their been problems, tragedies? Sure, but not compared to past great powers. Would France, Germany, Japan, Russia be greater dominant powers? The record isn't very encouraging.

But is that a bad thing? That depends on who is doing the surpassing. A multilaterial world in which countries share common values and interests, are constrained from warring with each other through political institutions (democracy) would allow the US to reinvest its money in things that matter (environment, education, economic development) and not in things that, at a certain point, become wasteful (weapons, military) . On the other hand if the US was surpassed by a country that supported totalitarianism or religious fundamentalism- which directly contrast with US values, than we could see a repeat to the dangers of the Cold War.

That would be trouble.

Jeezus this is long. Sorry, I tend to run off at the mouth.

 

[Brother None]

Ha, great read...Long, yes, but still...

"Rise and Decline of Nations" I might've been thinking of this book before...

I agree with you on basically every point, but a bit of nit-picking, out of curiosity:

You mentioned a change of power from Britain to the US. I think before you mentioned that the change of power was given shape in WW1 and made definitive in WW2. Now Britain was huge in those periods, but it wasn't "the power". As you'll remember, WW1 was between the divided nations of the colonial powers on one side (Britain, France) and the non-colonial powers on the other side (Austria-Hungary, Germany), with some countries dotting in between (the US and Czaric Russia)...Just nit-picking, the UK wasn't much of a Dominant Power in the early 20th century, though it was and is a World Power...Damn Brits...

Also, you mention to cost of upkeeping the UN and NATO (both basically US-centered organisations, especially NATO, which, in my opinion, is completely useless anyway) as a possible reason for the decline of the US, because of countries "free-riding". I don't exactly follow that...

Most previous dominant world powers I know of had a lot of countries free-riding on their tail, except if you count being a colony as free-riding.

And I don't know exactly what you're referring to with the US either. I mean, other countries pay for the UN and NATO as well, but indeed not nearly as much as the US does, but that's because the US has the most advantage of these organisations, being the head (though the UN is turning on the US, which is funny).

In the mean-time, the US has a huge debt, not only inside the country but to other countries as well. And let's not forget that the US often forces other countries into trading positions that it wants them in (notice how Japan and the EU have both been pressured for some time and some force to import more and export less).

I can understand it up to some level, but I don't think other countries are dragging the US down.

 

[Stranger]

Well I don't have time to read the whole thread right now, but I will say this - We've all got to die somehow.

I'm not particularly worried.

 

[welsh]

Ha, great read...Long, yes, but still...

"Rise and Decline of Nations" I might've been thinking of this book before...

I agree with you on basically every point, but a bit of nit-picking, out of curiosity:

You mentioned a change of power from Britain to the US. I think before you mentioned that the change of power was given shape in WW1 and made definitive in WW2. Now Britain was huge in those periods, but it wasn't "the power". As you'll remember, WW1 was between the divided nations of the colonial powers on one side (Britain, France) and the non-colonial powers on the other side (Austria-Hungary, Germany), with some countries dotting in between (the US and Czaric Russia)...Just nit-picking, the UK wasn't much of a Dominant Power in the early 20th century, though it was and is a World Power...Damn Brits...

Also, you mention to cost of upkeeping the UN and NATO (both basically US-centered organisations, especially NATO, which, in my opinion, is completely useless anyway) as a possible reason for the decline of the US, because of countries "free-riding". I don't exactly follow that...

Most previous dominant world powers I know of had a lot of countries free-riding on their tail, except if you count being a colony as free-riding.

And I don't know exactly what you're referring to with the US either. I mean, other countries pay for the UN and NATO as well, but indeed not nearly as much as the US does, but that's because the US has the most advantage of these organisations, being the head (though the UN is turning on the US, which is funny).

In the mean-time, the US has a huge debt, not only inside the country but to other countries as well. And let's not forget that the US often forces other countries into trading positions that it wants them in (notice how Japan and the EU have both been pressured for some time and some force to import more and export less).

I can understand it up to some level, but I don't think other countries are dragging the US down.

Hi Kharn, and thanks to you and the others for letting me Mod Roleplaying.

Truthfully, I think the hole Britain as hegemonic actor of the 19th Century is a bit overdone. Powerful yes, hegemonic, doubtful. If so, it was probably due to weaknesses of the other Europeans. By the 20th Century, the other states are becoming very strong.
A causal argument for both World War I and World War 2 can be traced to German fears of rising Russian power, although I find that questionable as well.

However, transitioning from leadership from Britian to US is assumed as part of that whole argument.

As for free-riding, consider the price of defense for instance. Defense and international security is normally seen as public good and important for the military side of hegemonic stability. Had the US not assumed much of the responsibility for defense than many states would have had to invest much more heavily in defense than they did. Japan for instance limited its defense to 1% during much of the Cold War. It was a big 1% but without US nuclear deterrence and safeguarding lines of communication with Europe and the middle east, it would have been higher. That allows that money that might have been squandered in defense to go other developmental sectors (micro-computers, ships, hondas, etc.)

Economically, the US played a significant role in the currently criticized world bank group, but there was more. Until the US dropped the gold standard, US currency provided the stable benchmark for all others. That affords greater monetary security while US suffers dramatic balance of payments deficits.

Now NATO, looks kind of useless but is it? Robert Art has a good argument about the role of NATO in securing Europe following the end of the Cold War when there was a danger of insecurity by European states, especially due to Germany's relative strength. I think the mission has changed by the organization is a good one and probably useful, especially in sustaining the TransAtlantic relationship. I think the Euros have a lot to be proud of and hopeful with the EU. But could the EU have existed without NATO? What about incorporation of Eastern Europe? NATO seems to be the security institution that helps make the EU the successful economic institution its been.

Someone had to pick up the bill, and had it not been the US then it would have been US allies. A cost of the US led to a net savings for the allies.

Yes its funny that the US has a crappy relationship with the UN. That's been true since the 1980s, but there are some legitimate grievances there.

As for the debt, you know under Clinton the debt wasn't that bad. Big, yes, but not all debt is bad. Sometimes, you can manage a debt so that the debt pays for itself, but that took some careful rebuilding, and then balanced budgets. Good debt management has the opposite effect of bad debt management. If you can manage your debt, you are a great credit risk, more money can be sent your way, and your considered a safe risk. If you can't manage your debt, no one wants to lend to you, no one trusts the stability of your economy, and its trouble. So its not debt, per se that's bad (although I think it better if you don't have it) but how you manage it.

But then came GB and then Iraq, defense shot up and I hear the occupation and someone told me that the occuption is costs a billion a day. Honestly, I'd like to hear how much this is costing.

Lets imagine that the story really is about oil, which is plausible. Who benefits? Not really the US unless its to curtain Saudi Arabia (Biosafreak made this argument). But that oil goes to US trading partners (Japan and Europe- OECD) as well as to the oil companies (which are US and European). Who foots the bill, US tax payers.

And most of us didn't even elect this president!

Sorry if this is kind of unclear, but I got to get back to work!

 

[The Shrike]

3. "Over-stretch". Clinton didn't declare war left and right, nor did he put huge sums of money into defense.

That is true in the sense that he did not 'declare' war. But he got the US into quite a few millitary campains in foreign countries. Bosnia comes to mind. He seemed to love bombing the shit out of Iraq. Somolia was another place where we had some millitary action during his terms in office. As for not putting huge sums of money into defense that is true.

 

[rad-X]

Back to the title of thread...

A particle collider will create a mini-black hole that will slowly suck up the planet.

OR

When nano-bots break their programming and start reproducing at an alarming rate, the world would be a silver sea of them and life would eventually die when we can't breath because of the number.

OR

An act of God. There is evidence of a giant flood (Noah's Ark) and not every legend is fake. Honest.

OR

An asteroid. Self-explanatory.

OR

Nuclear Explosions. Self-explanatory.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

well, i must admit i enjoyed reading this thread very much, particularly the arguments stated by welsh and Kharn. i agree with all of them, more or less. i said all i meant to say, so i won't comment anything anymore. i will, however, one of my views with you.

i very much respect Bill Clinton and consider him to be one of the most successful US presidents in the past fifty years. not taking into account his affair with Monica Lewinsky or the fact that he lied about it to the public, i must mention that he was very charismatic, intelligent and competent (unlike the uneducated dumbass George W. Bush). during his mandate USA successfully intervened in Bosnia, Yugoslavia and Iraq, maintained a fragile, yet steady peace between Israel and Palestine and had excellent relations not only with EU, but also with China, Russia and North Korea. US economy was stable and had a small, but sufficient growth. rarely does a country have administration that is so successful when it comes to both internal and foreign policies. rarely does an administration solve international problems using both diplomatic and military means with equal success. other words, Clinton rU13Z, Bush suXX.

 

[welsh]

End of the world?

I like that one, a sea of Nano-bots taking over. Didn't Creighton recently write a book on that. I was going to buy it, but hardbacks are too damn expensive.

Also about Bill, yes, he did get into some military adventures. The Somalia adventure was especially badly played out. Look, you send in a special force into a hostile area and don't have an adequate way to get them out, and the badguys surprise you, you will take casualties.

Did that mean the mission was a bad idea? Not necessarily. Lets not forget that Somalia was a humanitarian crisis. Was it poorly executed, well that's another point.

As for his success, if you ask me, he should have resigned when it came out that he lied and got impeached. Screwing around was not that great a sin, but lieing about it and then getting impeached was an embarrassment. Had he resigned, Gore would have had two years, plus would probably have won reelection. Bill might have been a good president, but the republican win for Bush was probably Clinton's fault.

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

Yeah, Crighton wrote his last novel on nano-particles that evolved into a living organism. I read it and wasnt that impressed. it was an OK read but Crighton is worthy of far better.

 

[CornCobRob]

sorry if you already covered it, but i didnt read most of the second page, it went off on a tangent so ill just say this.

i dont think that nuclear devistation will destroy the entrie world, i dont see what the hippies were saying in the 60 about a nuclear holocaust, cuz even if we did start firing missles at eachother, it would mainly be USSR, its satalite nations, the US, and a few of its allies that would be attacked. that would leave most of africa, austraila and south america unharmed, exept for any fallout that would float there.

granted it would be the destruction of the CIVILIZED world, but not the entire world. humans are so crafty, that i dont think they would ever bewcome extinct unless the sun blew up or something cataclismic like that happened by the time we have made the advances to space exploration. i read someones post and they said that it is to costly, and at the moment they are right, but last year i was watching something on the history channel, and they are making more cost efective ways of getting into space, and i think in 2006, there are a few major companies that have been asked to make prototypes, will all present their designs to nasa, or someone of equal status. with all the sci-fi nerds out there, space exploration is just a mater of time.
(i hope that made sense)

 

[Gwydion]

Gwydion wrote:
What is Bush doing so differenty from Clinton, aside from internal policies, Ratty?


Bush is:

1. Alienating the Europeans quickening the build of the EU, talk about digging your own grave.

I think that's questionable. France is a really hypocritical country, also. If the actions of one nation could really affect membership in the EU, France would be the perfect counter-weight to America.

2. Not doing anything relevant about an economic recession. "Trickle economics"/Reagenomics, though they've been proven to work are NOT the best way of dealing with a recession, and to start putting big money into foreign investments during hard times is as good as suicide. True, Clinton didn't have these troubles, and true, this is an internal policy, but it is relevant for the collapse of the US.

You just dismissed your own argument there.

3. "Over-stretch". Clinton didn't declare war left and right, nor did he put huge sums of money into defense.

Bush really hasn't used the military so much more than Clinton. I mean, there were almost continuous strikes on Iraq during Clinton's administration and of course there was the bombing campaign to get rid of Milosevic, just to name a couple of big ones. It's worth noting that in regards toward your first "difference," Clinton hardly bothered to consult the UN in either of these cases.

 

[Montez]

As for the US "falling", I don't think that's very likely. It is very likely that power will shift to some other region of the earth (probably Asia), but life will still go on in America , just as it does for every other nation that once held the title of "Strongest Nation". The population isn't going to stop living if the US loses it's top dog status - it just means the politicians won't be able to spout the belligerent bullshit they're now giving to the rest of the world, or at least they won't be taken seriously. Rome used to be a great empire, and it "fell", but Italians are still around, aren't they? Life goes on, even if governments don't.

As for the topic, the only thing that seems really likely to cause some sort of apocalypse to me is some kind of man-made virus, a la "28 Days". It seems like the nations of the world are too interdependent now for any kind of nuclear war. Technological progress seems to keep leaping ahead exponetially though, so the thought of something we create getting out of our control seems to be fairly probable.

Although in the long run, our inability to abandon this planet and colonize another if need be seems like a good canidate for our possible extinction. Anything that can happen on earth we could probably deal with, but considering how little we know of what goes on outside our planet...... Even though its pretty far fetched, any kind of extra-terran threat, whether meteors, aliens, whatever else the universe holds that we don't know about - anything like this that threatens our existence happens and we're fucked.