This week IS history - Asylum Forums

Asylum Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.8

Asylum Forums > Políticás der Monde > This week IS history

Pages (6): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 »

Last Thread Next Thread

Author

Thread

philjit
Arch-Enemy of Idealism

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

This week IS history

The times they are truly changing. The age of Neo-Empire is truly upon us and you have a very simple choice before you. You can either, to quote a fellow englishman, "slide into obscurity" or you can profit from it. It really is that simple.

quote:

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-12-2003 09:07 PM

Click here to Send philjit a Private Message

[P]

funkyrooster
King Leer

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Just to the right of the moon
Posts: 3141

Myself and Phil have discussed this at some length and find ourselves in accordance. the basic premise of our argument is this:

The United States is presently building the capacity, in military/political and economic terms, to dominate the planet for the next century. That is its intention. There is nothing particularly sinister about this. It is what Britain did after Trafalgar and it was called the Pax Brittanicca. What follows from now will perhaps be less Pax, but certainly more 'Americana'. the important thing from Britain's point of view is to recognise this for what it is worth. It is not a clumsy attempt to wield influence by a country that has been elevated to preeminence by the collapse of its rival. What we are seeing is the calculated expansion of capacity that will allow the United States to implement its ultimate strategy of exporting (liberal) free market democracy throughout the world and developing the means to counter any threat, wherever it may lie, that threatens either US security or, more generally, US dominance. Therefore, Britain, and its policy makers, must develop a similar idea of precisely where they want this country to be in the next 20, 50 and 100 years. They need to think strategically and ally themselves centrally to the US power base. French posturing over this Veto has illustrated that their politicians (not their analysts) have little grasp of what the future holds. Jaques Chiraq sees a multipolar world with a number of power bases cancelling each other out. In reality, there will be one power base and it will seek to obstruct and defeat all others, exercising a 'benevolent' hegemony that will benefit those countries that recognise this now, and ally themselves securely to it. This is why the Labour party is being irresponsible. They do not realise that what happens matters is not what happens in the next couple of months, but what will be happening in 20 years time, and what position in the global order this country will occupy. For politicians to give in to public sentiment when they should instead be mindful of the wider and long term implications of the US-Europe debate at the moment is short sighted and irresponsible.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Ein Reich
Ein Volk
Ein Rooster

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-12-2003 09:50 PM

Click here to Send funkyrooster a Private Message

[P]

DevilMoon
passive stalker?

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: zanzibar
Posts: 10477

That is interesting, but really, if the EU, the African Union, former Soviet states, or South America could root out corruption, internal bickering, and other ailments and become a bit more business friendly any of them could eventually rival the US. Asia or the Middle Eastern states, if they could ever join a republic system could also do it, but its less likely.

If we had to be seen as dominating the world, doing so through the spread of free-market democracy isn't a bad way to be.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-12-2003 10:11 PM

Click here to Send DevilMoon a Private Message

[P]

oxsan
Keeper of the Keys

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

Funkyrooster, Did you and Phil write that up above in this thread or is that the prof an unlimited number of PhD types in some think tank.

Which ever I think that it is right on and accurate to a high degree even though I think that it fails to grasp one aspect that is important. I think that is what the USA is doing all right and I think they will be successful at it what it fails to grasp I think is that there is no real single person or even group that is driving the Pax Americana into existence. In a way that makes it more
powerful and dynamic since the removal by death or disability of any one person---even Bush--would not greatly change the direction in which the US is heading. We are IMO just following our nose, being the World's policeman and trying to bring the blessings of prosperity and freedom to our world. As we see it, and I don't mean this to be offensive at all, we are spreading the American way. We aren't forcing any one to take it but we are giving it away.

One other thing. I don't think that this is by any means just a political or military development. In fact I think that it is more commercial and cultural than it is political.

Really I think the words above are a blueprint of the route to the Pax Americana.

Now tell me for true Funky, did you write that?--or did Phil?

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan

Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-12-2003 10:38 PM

Click here to Send oxsan a Private Message

[P]

buddha's penis
mourning wood

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: 0.50
Posts: 9355

and thus, nothing changed in canada.

actually, chretien is being a big more difficult than i would have guessed. he's pretty firmly agaist war, it seems. most likely because he's resigning soon, and we're pretty much safe from US rebuke (except maybe the dreaded CULINARY rebuke) because of our vast resources and short-sighted policies/ideas to manage them.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

how do you like your blueeyed boy
Mister Death

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-12-2003 11:06 PM

Click here to Send buddha's penis a Private Message

[P]

DevilMoon
passive stalker?

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: zanzibar
Posts: 10477

Canada Dry... soon to be FREEDOM Dry!!!!!!!!!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-12-2003 11:13 PM

[P]

DevilMoon
passive stalker?

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: zanzibar
Posts: 10477

Canadian Geese... soon to be FREEDOM Geese!!!!!!1

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-12-2003 11:13 PM

[P]

buddha's penis
mourning wood

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: 0.50
Posts: 9355

freedom bacon!

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

how do you like your blueeyed boy
Mister Death

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-13-2003 12:02 AM

[P]

DevilMoon
passive stalker?

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: zanzibar
Posts: 10477

We may let you keep Canadian bacon.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-13-2003 12:20 AM

[P]

buddha's penis
mourning wood

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: 0.50
Posts: 9355

i guess i should thank you, but i'm not really sure what canadian bacon is. when i order bacon, i get regular bacon.
also, WAR IS BAD!

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

how do you like your blueeyed boy
Mister Death

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-13-2003 01:17 AM

[P]

Mugtoe
Cuddly Puppy

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 18147

The hell it is. I bet George knows every one of those capitols and heads of state now.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

quote:
Originally posted by magnolia
never waste a hardon, trust a fart or pass up a breath mint when offered.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-13-2003 04:49 AM

Click here to Send Mugtoe a Private Message

[P]

Smug Git
Arrogance Personified

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35658

Canadian bacon is the same sort of stuff as English bacon (ie, back bacon) I guess. The US stuff is like streaky bacon, which you can get here too (cheaper, I think). Is that right?

One of Funkyrooster's points would seem to me to be that it doesn't matter much whether the US effort is morally right (I am not convinced that it is sensible, myself, certainly) but that it is likely to happen and that if other nations don't bend in that wind then they will break (or be broken).

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-13-2003 06:56 AM

Click here to Send Smug Git a Private Message

[P]

philjit
Arch-Enemy of Idealism

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:
Originally posted by oxsan
Now tell me for true Funky, did you write that?--or did Phil?

he wrote it, I agree with it entirely. Incidently, my support for America is guided in the long term by my dislikes for America. What I mean by this is simple. I love the island that I live on, and it serves the cultural and political interests of this island more to capitulate to this largely beneovlent hegemony than it does to stand against it. As I have said to funky privately and I have said in here. The rubicon has been passed, and a pragmatism towards this very new world order, not ideology against it, is what will best serve this country in the long term.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-13-2003 07:09 AM

[P]

Smug Git
Arrogance Personified

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35658

And rooster, how are the US going to pay for this? Current US deficit spending (helped in some large part by increased military spending to combat the 'new threats') isn't indefinitely sustainable. Presumably they will be selling Nikes to every country that they 'liberate'?

I am not completely convinced that it will happen (although I don't know enough to say that it isn't the grand masterplan; it certainly seems plausible to me). It isn't inconceivable that a country like China won't become richer and more powerful than the US in 100 years, surely? I think that the UK should keep its eyes open and not get in so deep that it can't get out, if that can be achieved. And in any case, unless the UK joins the US (highly unlikely) then we will be part of a probably unified EU and they may pursue the superpower course themselves (probably if the French have their way). We are, after all, talking about 100 years, which is a really very long time; even 20 years is a very long time in which a lot can happen.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-13-2003 07:15 AM

[P]

philjit
Arch-Enemy of Idealism

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:
Originally posted by Smug Git
And rooster, how are the US going to pay for this? Current US deficit spending (helped in some large part by increased military spending to combat the 'new threats') isn't indefinitely sustainable. Presumably they will be selling Nikes to every country that they 'liberate'?

The spoils of war and domination.

quote:
It isn't inconceivable that a country like China won't become richer and more powerful than the US in 100 years, surely?

It certainly isn't oh smug one. But for this is not about 100 years from now, its about the next 50 years of my lifetime.

quote:
I think that the UK should keep its eyes open and not get in so deep that it can't get out, if that can be achieved. And in any case, unless the UK joins the US (highly unlikely) then we will be part of a probably unified EU and they may pursue the superpower course themselves (probably if the French have their way). We are, after all, talking about 100 years, which is a really very long time; even 20 years is a very long time in which a lot can happen.

Europe is not going to be what Germany and France want it to be. It will never be more than a collection of independent nation states. Expansion assures that, and that is why the Euro-sceptic side of that debate is so intent and in favour of expansion. The new member states have just left a colossal power where they looked east towards Moscow for policy they are not about to begn looking towards Brussels. There are interesting times for Europe ahead, and they will not be what France and Germany want out of this. I love Europe, and I love the idea of European Unity, but that should be unity of nation states, not unity in a one large federal state.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-13-2003 07:23 AM

[P]

Smug Git
Arrogance Personified

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35658

I supported (and said so in here) the eastern expansion of the EU for precisely the reasons that you mention; I am still not convinced that it will be enough, though. Furthermore, the extreme unpopularity, in the UK, of Bush Jr may well push the UK closer to Europe. The problem is that the people of the UK, although obviously unlikely to erase Blair's government in a bloody revolt, aren't enthusiastic about Bush and won't (I don't think) be enthusiastic about this future that you see. I am a fan of America and yet I oppose this model (bizarrely, as you are not a fan of America and support it) because I don't trust any nation with that much power.

I do think, though, that France could have held exactly the same position as this without causing the level of offence that they have done (as could the US, for that matter). People like Rumsfeld, Chirac and Fischer are behaving like spoilt children in a blinking contest. Blair, bizarrely, is acting like a diplomat (although not having a great deal of success) so that even when Rumsfeld inadvertantly kicks him in the nuts, all his government (inwardly fuming) say is that the comments were 'unhelpful'. He has been similarly diplomatic with the French; Jack Straw just said that he hadn't anticipated that 'a veto wielding member would say that they were going to veto any resolution, without even seeing it' and then basically saying that he now has to take that into consideration (that is obviously stronger language than the previous example, but still relatively mild considering the position this action puts the UK in).

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-13-2003 07:46 AM

[P]

philjit
Arch-Enemy of Idealism

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:
Originally posted by Smug Git
I am a fan of America and yet I oppose this model (bizarrely, as you are not a fan of America and support it) because I don't trust any nation with that much power.

I never said I trusted it. This is not an issue of trust for me. Its an issue of calculating where the risk to our interests are least affected and best protected. I cannot see our interests, right now, being best served on this issue of global order with Europe as it currently stands. Of course I don't trust America, precisely because I don't trust any nation with that much power. However, I would rather be mistrustful from inside the tent than outside it.

quote:
People like Rumsfeld, Chirac and Fischer are behaving like spoilt children in a blinking contest. Blair, bizarrely, is acting like a diplomat

I agree entirely with the first part. But I don;t think its bizarre that Blair is acting like a diplomat. He is being long sighted over this one. He is acknowledging that things are chaning and they are changing big time. He knows that 'some' of our interests are served by being 'in' Europe, but he also knows that in the wider scope our interests are served by being 'with' America, whilst all the time remaining an independent nation. A tightrope work to be sure, and one that was first idenitifed by Churchill. Our place and role in this new world is going to be the diplomatic one I believe. It is what we excel at. No other Empire in history can proudly boast to have dismatled itself and yet still maintain such a large and siginificant influence over its former colonies. We did that because we are good at the horse trading of diplomacy.

What we are all witnessing in these times is likely to be the most significant event of this century, and will be talked about by our children and our children's children in the years to come. This is more significant than September 11th, that was just an 'event', this however is the reshaping and redrafting of the global order and is going to shape the way things work for the years to come.

Although I say this with a very heavy heart, the choice before us all it would seem is a simple one. Stick with ideology and slide into obscurity, or use the pragmatism this island is famous for and profit from it. This week IS history my friend. It marks the very real beginning of a radical change in the way the world has worked for the last 60 years. It is going to effect the world in the long term for the rest of our lives and our children's lives, and there is not a single thing we can do to stop it. The best we can hope for is to work the new system in the manner that we know best.

Last edited by philjit on 03-13-2003 at 08:28 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-13-2003 08:19 AM

[P]

funkyrooster
King Leer

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Just to the right of the moon
Posts: 3141

quote:
Originally posted by Smug Git
And rooster, how are the US going to pay for this? Current US deficit spending (helped in some large part by increased military spending to combat the 'new threats') isn't indefinitely sustainable. Presumably they will be selling Nikes to every country that they 'liberate'?

I am not completely convinced that it will happen (although I don't know enough to say that it isn't the grand masterplan; it certainly seems plausible to me). It isn't inconceivable that a country like China won't become richer and more powerful than the US in 100 years, surely? I think that the UK should keep its eyes open and not get in so deep that it can't get out, if that can be achieved. And in any case, unless the UK joins the US (highly unlikely) then we will be part of a probably unified EU and they may pursue the superpower course themselves (probably if the French have their way). We are, after all, talking about 100 years, which is a really very long time; even 20 years is a very long time in which a lot can happen.

I will get back to this when I have some time, as I am required elsewhere at the moment. Nevertheless, consider the fact that the US presently spends around 3%GDP on Defence which equates to a budget of a round $360bn. During the mid 80's the figure was around 7%. Imagine what a defence budget of say $500bn dollars could do when the WHOLE of Europe spends $150bn. as for the US economy, the recession is global and likely to affect everyione else, who will therefore themselves be forced to tighten their belts. As for China and its increasing power, this is being monitored but it is unlikely that it will increase by as much as is needed to challenge the US without, ironically, a large degree of US economic aid.

Anyway, I will expand on my thoughts later and say what I think about the position that Britain is in and the choices that it must make. I am sure that Phil has his own ideas. I love this little Island too, and it has a valuable role to play, but that value is dependent upon the correct choices being made now.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Ein Reich
Ein Volk
Ein Rooster

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-13-2003 08:22 AM

[P]

oxsan
Keeper of the Keys

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

This is probably the most interesting thread that I have ever read on the Asylum. I have stared at it a good part of the night (it is 2 AM now on the Brazos) and I am still not sure what I think about it or if it is true.

quote:
The US is building the capacity, in military , political and economic terms to dominate the planet for a century. That is its intention.

That is one hell of a pregnant statement. If true it is more profound of Funky and Phil to have come up with it than I could have given them credit for doing. The part of it that is so very difficult for me to accept is the last four words. It is very difficult for me to see coherence in US foreign policy much less a planned and integrated effort toward world domination. I think that the average US citizen would be hard pressed to accept those last four words as true. I do not know George Bush personally but I find it almost impossible to consider him as the political alchemist who is mixing this brew of which Funky speaks. I think that Cheney and Rove and Bush Sr. would be far more capable of fulfilling the last four words of Funky's quote above. Certainly Powell does not impress me as being the harbor for this "gran chiffre" of political thought. Rumsfeld? Nah! He is a good ol' boy but he is not deep enough to have derived this as a theory of government.

During Wotld War II there was a PR driven stated "goal" of the US
to "make the world safe for democracy" and this carried on into
the cold war. It resonated with the US public (strangely much more those on the left politically who now disown it completely
and adhere more to "the US is not the world's policeman" view.
I think that the US has the basic resources and technology and military power to "dominate the planet for a century" but I fail to
see that it has the concerted will and desire to do so. We see it happening before our eyes commercially and we credit the superiority of our capitalistic system for that power's existence but we don't think that there is drive on the part of the people or of the government to make it happen. As to the economy and the strain that continued global influence puts on our economy
I don't worry about it much. The American economy is the most resilient and vigorous facror in this equation in my view.

If Funky is right who is driving it in the US? If the answer is George Bush I will never believe it. Gotta go sleep.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan

Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-13-2003 08:57 AM

[P]

Smug Git
Arrogance Personified

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35658

quote:
Originally posted by funkyrooster
I will get back to this when I have some time, as I am required elsewhere at the moment. Nevertheless, consider the fact that the US presently spends around 3%GDP on Defence which equates to a budget of a round $360bn. During the mid 80's the figure was around 7%. Imagine what a defence budget of say $500bn dollars could do when the WHOLE of Europe spends $150bn. as for the US economy, the recession is global and likely to affect everyione else, who will therefore themselves be forced to tighten their belts. As for China and its increasing power, this is being monitored but it is unlikely that it will increase by as much as is needed to challenge the US without, ironically, a large degree of US economic aid.

My point was about deficit spending, rather than recession; the US is still repaying the deficit of the 80s, as I understand it. No problem with that, I have a mortgage that is bigger than my annual income by some way and that is OK. The problem is that continual deficit spending isn't supportable, not that there won't be recessions (after all, they are pretty inevitable). How much did the US pay off the deficit when the US economy was healthy in the 90s, though? If, over an economic cycle, there is a remaining net deficit then the deficit accumulates; if it accumulates too fast then disaster will find you sooner or later. Incidentally, the UK at least is not in recession. Yet.

The same arguments actually apply to most countries (one of my bigggest reservations about increased UK financial integration within the EU is about the financial policies of several member nations) and I would also be dubious if they chose to embark on a great program of world domination (and they could certainly increase their military spending to match that of the US, in the same sort of way as the US will, by borrowing it). The danger of this for America is that they might fall, at some future stage, into a severe economic state where servicing their loans hurts their economy a great deal (and the US has never defaulted on its loans and won't, I don't think). You can't fight the tide of financial reality for ever; if the policy is only sustainable through the results of war, then that is obviously dangerous too.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

03-13-2003 09:17 AM

[P]

Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26420

quote:
Originally posted by oxsan
If Funky is right who is driving it in the US? If the answer is George Bush I will never believe it. Gotta go sleep.

I think you're taking it the wrong way, honestly. I don't see that funky or Phil ever suggested it was some sort of mass conspiracy, or even that it could be attributed to any one person or group of people. (and before I get in trouble for that, I don't mean to suggest that you're espousing a conspiracy theory, but language like "much less a planned and integrated effort toward world domination", "the political alchemist who is mixing this brew", "the harbor for this "gran chiffre" of political thought", or "concerted will and desire to do so", are putting it into such a context, which is not a context that Phil or funky's comments struck me as being in). I see it more as a comment on a geopolitical reality as anything else, and on that, I think you're both right. I think funky and Phil et al are absolutly correct in their assessment of (at least) the most likely possibility, and I think you are right, oxsan, in assessing the cause of it, that it isn't a person or group of people driving it, just an inherent nature of American foreign policy. It isn't a conspiracy theory that they are issuing, it's a geopolitical theory, and one that I can't find much fault with. I myself have been in the position these last few months of thinking the US position is bullshit, but having to support it because we've put ourselves in such a corner that I now fully believe backing down would have more serious and far-reaching consequences than going through with it would.

But anyway, I don't see funky o