Previous  1  2  3

If the US collapsed, it certainly would have negative consequences for us Canadians. Specifically Economic consequences. Whether that threatens Canadian Sovereignty or not is really hard to say. That really depends on a lot of factors.

If the US slips into Civil War, Refugees are likely to be a big problem, both for wanting out of the conflict and quite possibly to escape Famine. There are likely to be some situations where the conflict spills across the Border, either due to Bands of opportunistic criminals or possibly even Militias looking for Supplies/Resources, but as long as Canada beefs up the Military in that situation, these incursions shouldn't be a threat to Sovereignty. Probably would have some European Allies Troops to help secure things as well.

All that said, I don't think another US Civil War would occur like the first. If it happened, it would likely be low key, with Ideologues clashing amongst each other with the Government trying to keep them from doing so, rather than the Military splitting up and everyone going Home to fight for their side like they did previously.


The US is certainly on a downward trend at this time. What is not known is whether they'll reverse that or plateau at some point. As China/India grow, the importance and capability of the US diminishes and it is only a matter of time before it becomes like Britain, powerful and influential, but not dominating anymore.

   

Yes, it is semantics. Your argument is that the US is not an empire because it does not conform to many facets of previous empires (extensive worldwide territories, military occupation forces, etc), yet the US, by your own admission, it does have dozens of territories around the globe, where it has stationed thousands of its troops. Are those territories as extensive as empires past? No, but it still possesses 'imperial infrastructure' of a sort.

And I can just as easily provide commentary that the US is an empire, simply because of its preponderance of political economic, military, cultural clout.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Empire




http://hnn.us/articles/1237.html

Hell, better yet, read Colossus (by Niall Ferguson). It examines US hegemony prior to the Iraq war. Here's a blurb;



So, yes, I would argue that the USA can be an empire, without any of the awful connotations of the word itself, especially given the methods it employed during the Bush years, where it acted on many occasions unilaterally, without regards for world opinion or other worldwide organizations.

IMHO, an American Empire is not a terrible thing, just like the British Empire, on the whole, wasn't a bad thing.




If the rationale for troops in Europe was the USSR, why didn't troops in Germany come home in the 90s after it collapsed? Canada's did, why not the US? Or why did the USA build even more bases in Europe, namely in eastern European nations such as Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania (to name but a few)? Or why build bases in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and all the other 'Stans'? As you said, these bases were built to intimidate other nations, namely Russia, China, Iran and Iraq

You can argue that all those bases worldwide aren't to keep people in line, but I bet the Saddam Hussein had a different opinion, as do many leaders in Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and pretty much any other nation on the globe that is not a staunch US ally.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html

The bases (Subic Bay & Clark Field) that the US 'lost' in the Philippines, were simply replaced by enhancing bases in other US overseas protectorates such as Saipan, Guam, as well as bigger bases in Japan, so there was little reason to 'pound away' at Manila as you put it. Given the range and capabilities of planes and ships these days, those bases didn't really add all that much to the US global military infrastructure.



I never said it would collapse, simply that other nations will eclipse it in time. If you go back and read my posts, I stated that the USA will gradually decline to that of a major power, and the world order will likely have many major nations, with no single global hegemon.




Your answer only talks about influence, but infers that the US will remain the world's dominant military and economic power, and given that dominant is defined as;



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dominant

it's quite easy to see how I think your stance is that the US will be the top dog forever and ever.

However, it seems we are essentially agreeing that the US will be surpassed at some point in time and be relegated to the role of major power, not superpower.

   

I'd think it'd be pretty important for the United States to fit the definition of an empire, and then actually study how the United States is different from past examples. With every other "empire" in history, the traditional definition applied.
The United States doesn't fit said traditional definition, and because of this, it's "downfall" might never happen at all. I'm not saying another country might eclipse the United States in power, but there won't be a reduction of American power like the British, Romans, Egyptians, Ottomans, Soviet, Mongol, French, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.



Of a sort? I admit the United States as global military reach, but it's not in the same sense as past empires. Traditional empires needed that reach to keeps its territories in line, the United States doesn't need that because it doesn't have large territories outside what is considered American soil. That's a HUGE distinction between the Americans and the Soviets, or the British, or a great many other empires of the past.



A majority of that link is when the United States actually was an empire (in control of Cuba, the Philippines, etc). The United States does not control said territories, so therefore the American empire collapsed probably in the 1950s. The one section about military bases is an argument, not a fact.




And where does this fit, outside of American territories? Nowhere. The United States doesn't have indirect, nor direct control over what is commonly considered a part of the US Empire, and does not hold the final decision in foreign countries, like when the Philippines told the US to close some of her bases, or when Canada said no to the missile defense system.

Just because the United States as military bases around the world, does not give the United States final authority over the political decisions of those nations.



That's great, but I'm arguing against that, and as such, the traditional view on how empires fall over time might not totally fit the United States today, because it lacks some of the key features of every empire in the history of humankind. Do I think the United States is guaranteed to stay the most powerful country on the planet? No, because I don't have a time machine, but that being said, the "downfall" might never occur, but rather another country might just surpass the United States.

You think this is just semantics? Fine. Don't respond then.



Interesting, but you're forgetting that the United States needed the consent of those host countries to build those bases. They didn't just tell Poland "Hey, we're building a base here, if you don't like it, too fucking bad." Poland, or those many other countries you mentioned consented for American military support, and the United States will more than happily agree due to it's common interests with said host nation, and probably the potential for arms sales to that country.

So basically the United States is an empire, because it asks countries nicely for military bases?



So what? The whole point of the military bases of every empire in human history was to keep the population in their territory in line. Intimidating foreign nations to prevent military conflict is the role of any military, of any country, in the world. And more importantly, the United States can intimidate any country with nuclear weaponry, it doesn't need foreign military bases for that role.



And your point is what? Johnson stated that he sees military bases as colonies. I see military bases as military bases. I see foreign military bases as needing the permission of said host country to remain. Because the host nation still has control over the US military presence, I do not see bases as colonies.



So? They still left the Philippines, did they not? Most traditional empires would take that demand to pull out military bases with a military response, the United States didn't because, in the long run, those host countries still control if the United States keeps its bases there or not.

The fact that Japan, Canada, and a number of other countries rely on the United States for own defense is not based on American ownership over us, but rather our unwillingness to actually become independent of the American military, thus allowing us to spend freely on non-military programs.

Also, as an interesting side note, you mentioned the range of modern day ships. A large portion of the American fleet is nuclear based, thus needing naval bases overseas for resupply (Which can be accomplished through other means) and for the comfort of the crews. They're also there to defend the mutual interests of both the host country and the United States from a foreign rival (South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan from North Korea and China, as examples)



I said the United States isn't a traditional empire. You said to me that: "You're naive then if you don't expect other nations to eventually surpass the USA. " When I never stated that the United States will always be the dominant power.



I never said that either. I said that other countries will chip away at American power in the world, but the United States will still have a powerful and dominant role in the future. Will it be a hyperpower, like it was after the fall of the USSR? Probably not, but will it lose its status as a superpower? I don't think so either. I see countries rising to BECOME superpowers, but I haven't seen a good reason why the United States will become just a major power, since it has a huge influence in technology, military, economics, and politics, due to it being the largest Western state.

   

The collapse might come quicker than you might think


The US still has Global reach, but also it's requiremnts die to treaties and understandings outstretches it's actual capabilities more than anyone actually realises. Of the 4 countries mentioned mentione as allies U.K and France want nothing to do with any american foreign adventure or commitment, France wanted nothing to with Iraq for rightly suspecting tha th Americans are and were full of shit about Iraq. The U.K wants nothing to do with the US foreign disasters because they feel that they wre lied to by the US and the Blair government about the so-called Iraq-Al queada ties and the WMD screw up. and yet the US is basically screwed now because what alliances it has remaning it must stick its neck out further and further necause it losing friends and allies faster than it makes them

Russia is a diferent bird altogether, they have jetisoned the repubclics of the of Old USSR and concentrated on thier own orgignal nation, are they as proposerous as the U.S is ? or at lest the mythology that many western believe about american 'wealth (ill come to thi later. that fact is that Russia has rationalized its defence posture to the point where it doesnt have to compete to win a new Cold War. Its perfectly willing to let internaional dislike of the US to do the job for them and th Ameicans to do it themselves. One ca easily say that the Russians are no angels and no one would dispute that, but almost cloclwork the Ameicans provide the world with a My Lai, a Abu Gharib a or a Gitmo and then yell at the top of thier lungs that Waterboarding isn't torture. Eventually people cotton onto the fact that the American line of "Liberty" relly just means liberty for Americans (prefarbly white middle aged heterosexuals) and the rest of the world can go fuck itself.

Of the four powers mentioned the Chinese are likely the smartest of the whole bunch, this is a people who think strategically in generational terms. The overwheling irony of all of this is that the Chinese used the americans Greed agaisnt them. If it hadn't been so stupidly predictable (and it was) it might have been funny. But now it's just become the explanation of how the US will drop from being a superpower to something else. they simply cannot afford going on spending money the way they have. They dont hve the money and the money they do have they borrow from the Chinese.


Eventually the Us will have to make hard choices, either guns or butter. For decades now they have had the thought that they could have both.

They were wrong

   

The US has nukes and we have butter. If we ever need to cut back we'll close our foreign bases, bring home the fleet, and just keep our nuc and attack subs on patrol.

The downside of that comes when some country decides to mess with us and all we have to answer the threat is a MIRV. It'll suck to be them, that's for sure.

   

You keep thinking that the commies are going to be crossing the border any day now. countries like Russia and China aren't going to go toe-to-tow with you, its entirely counter-productive to their aims. The reality is that they have given the US all the rope to hang themselves. Russia did it by allowing the US to go into areas where the feeling is entirely anti-American, especially in the middle east.

The Russians have decades of experience that you cant co-opt basically Middle-Eastern and Islamic nations. Their last lesson in Afghanistan is one that the Us failed to learn which is why Al-Queda and the Taliban are still growing going 10 years after 9/11. The Us may occupy a few cities in Afghanistan but the people who actually own and control the land are no NATO forces. You can draw a straight line in the failure in Afghanistan to the decision made to invade Iraq in the face off all advice not to

The Russians have won because for the last 10 years they have watched the the US lose influence because of their ham-handed behavior and because the US has handed the world who don't like US policy gems like Abu-Gharib, Gitmo and waterboarding.


The Chinese have been successful because they think in terms which are alien to most Americans, they think generationally. They knew that engaging in a full on war with the US would be foolish. Instead the identified the weak point of not just the US government but average US citizens, greed. They loaned the US so much money to prop up an extravagant lifestyle to the point that the Us is now beholden to Chinese interests because it relies on China to fund US domestic programs and to artificially lower tax rates for US citizens and corporations. This is also especially true because you also rely on Chinese and foreign loans to purchase imported oil.


The problem is that the US can't withdraw, it relies on other nations far more than they rely on it. The Us needs to maintain the agreements it does have just in an attempt to hang on to the lifestyle it has. It wont be able to but it still has to try. Over time the US will have to compromise more and more to international opinion just to keep the natives happy at home. If it doesn't and does decide to withdraw the countries which has agreements with the US now will look elsewhere for the 'better deal'. And the money which flowed into the US in terms of loans will flow elsewhere

   

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree...

   

It's a lot to read but this lays out why exactly why the US is an imperial power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Empire

   

The thing is even if the US did close every single base in foreign countries, places like Saipan, Guam, Diego Garcia etc still provide them with plenty of reach. And if they abandoned those too, things like ship-to-ship refueling and aerial refueling would still enable conventional US forces to hit anywhere on the globe anyways. The only difference is how long it takes for the strike planes to get to their target.

   

Previous  1  2  3