|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jhaelin
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:10 pm Post subject: Do events since 9/11 show America's rise or decline? |
 |
|
regardless of where you reside in the political and economical spectrum, certain things appear to be undebatable.
1) 9/11 ignited the start of a new world war, called the "war on terror".
2) american military adventurism is higher than any other time in history.
3) It is now firmly agreed by political and economic leaders that oil is a scarce resource in decline (in addition, to other resources: minerals, metals, fresh water, etc.).
taking all moral and ethical judgements out of the equation,
i want to consider the recent show of strength globally by the american government/military.
i want to ask if it is an indication that american power is further increasing (supporting "pax americana"),
or does it show an empire in decline, flexing its muscles in desperation against its fall?
in my opinion, a truly strong global power would not need to resort to military strength to get its way,
as america was able to do for the most part since the end of ww2.
even though, there have been many instances (since the end of ww2)
of america relying on its military to get what it wanted,
i think until recently, it was able to accomplish most of its interests through the leverage of its economic and political power.
but this has dramatically changed in our time.
is the "war on terror" really about terrorism or is it a "war for resources"?
this is a tough question to answer but one we should all ask ourselves.
is there a link between the increasing scarcity of resources globally and recent events unfolding in the middle east, central asia and africa?
if we see the iraq war as an example of a resource war, what does this really say about american power?
once again let's look at this neutrally without moral judgement.
as an american,
should recent events make me feel secure in my government,
because it is demonstrating its strength and acquiring the necessary resources (oil) for our nation's needs?
or
should i be concerned that
our government/corporations are losing its political and economic power globally, as demonstrated by the recent reliance on brute strength to secure the necessary resources (oil) for our nations's needs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:01 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
I agree with you that the current war is more a war of resources or a war of greed than a war on terror. I feel that America is in decline. In many parts of the inner cities, America looks more third world than third world countries. Of course, this is nothing new, and it is possible to reverse the trend. But it's going to take some strong leadership - not strong in the sense of force but in the sense of power.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sociologists Gregory Hooks and Gregory McLaughlan wrote: |
While trends in military spending might give the impression that U.S. military leadership has eroded, the U.S. remains far and away the leading military power. The United States, like hegemonic powers of previous centuries, has maintained unsurpassed naval forces to project force throughout the globe. Modelski and Thompson include aircraft carriers, nuclear-attack submarines, and seaborne nuclear weapons in assessing U.S. naval capabilities. They estimate that the United States had a 100 percent share until 1960 and that the U.S. share remains above 60 percent at present [that is, the rest of the world combined had a 40 percent share at the time of this writing; since shifted to approximately 51 vs. 49 percent -- g.]...
It is a testament to the vast resources at the U.S.'s command that the Truman Administration treated the Korean War as "a side show..." Similarly, while fighting the Vietnam War, the United States modernized and expanded its nuclear forces and organized a series of spaceflights that culminated in flights to the moon...
[T]he military decline of the United States is by no means invevitable. In contrast to previous hegemons, and Great Britain in particular, the United States is a nation of continental proportions and rich natural resources. Despite its relative decline, the United States will remain a major economic power with many resources to devote to military pursuits. The most visible of the U.S.'s potential challengers, Japan and Germany, are remarkably demilitarized, and building...military forces [there]...is impeded by a number of constitutional and political roadblocks. |
"The Institutional Foundations of Warmaking: Three Eras os U.S. Warmaking, 1939-1989," Theory and Society 21 (1992): 757-788.
Article is a fifteen-year-old attack against "the military-industrial complex." But its conclusions remain current. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
certain things appear to be undebatable.
1) 9/11 ignited the start of a new world war, called the "war on terror".
|
I think that is debatable. I don't think it's a 'world war' and I question the use of the word 'war' in the name "War on Terror". I'm not alone in that view. No point in restating all the same old arguments.
Second, about decline:
Someone once asked Mao something about the importance of the French Revolution. His reply: It's too soon to tell.
Jed Bartlett: Modern history is another name for 'news'.
I agree with these views. It's impossible to know now what is an historical trend. For all we know, today's news is just a blip. It will take a considerable amount of time before anyone knows what is happening. History is not like a TV show, with the plot points all resolved in an hour or two. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jhaelin
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I think that is debatable. I don't think it's a 'world war' and I question the use of the word 'war' in the name "War on Terror". I'm not alone in that view. No point in restating all the same old arguments.
Second, about decline:
Someone once asked Mao something about the importance of the French Revolution. His reply: It's too soon to tell.
Jed Bartlett: Modern history is another name for 'news'.
I agree with these views. It's impossible to know now what is an historical trend. For all we know, today's news is just a blip. It will take a considerable amount of time before anyone knows what is happening. History is not like a TV show, with the plot points all resolved in an hour or two. |
you're right...
it is probably debatable to use the term "world war" for the "war on terror".
i guess i used it loosely in the sense it is globally encompassing;
as the war on terror technically has no enemy states declared, yet every nation a potential enemy.
i thought i could use it to express the new state of what "world war" now means; i.e. "you're either with us or against us!"
i do have a problem with your second point, though....
it seems a thoughtful response yet thoroughly disatisfying as an opinion on the issue raised by the OP.
based on your view then, there is no point in ever assessing current events.
as they are always unfolding and changing, they never allow for an accurate historical analysis.
i presume what mao was saying in your quote is that the big picture is uncertain....
but i guess i wasn't seeking an academic historical analysis nor did i frame a "big picture" question.
i wasn't asking, "what is the importance of the 'war on terror'?".
i asked, "does it indicate america's ascendence in strength or decline in power."
if that reporter had framed the question to mao more specifically, e.g. "did the french revolution indicate the economic strength or weakness of france at the time?", i'm sure he would have gotten a response...
so i ask again, have the actions of our nation since 9/11 shown its strength or weakness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
The US has not been attacked since 9/11. Osama bin Labia is still hiding out in his cave. Libya has had a conversion. Iraq stands as an exemple of what happens if the Americans get a little angry. Israel has a much freer hand against the Palestinians and the Americans still back it.
All in all great results. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Osama bin Labia is still hiding out in his cave. |
How sure are you of that? My guess is that he's in Pakistan, and not in a cave.
In response to the OP,
The Iraq war and America's policy in Central Asia, both of which will likely be judged as failures, are going to be less decisive than the Vietnam War was in ending American power in the 1970s.
Look to the private sector for the verdict to your question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
but i guess i wasn't seeking an academic historical analysis nor did i frame a "big picture" question.
i wasn't asking, "what is the importance of the 'war on terror'?".
i asked, "does it indicate america's ascendence in strength or decline in power."
|
I don't mean this response to be a personal attack. Your OP seems muddled and your response to me seems even more muddled. I think you should drop back and punt...meaning, rethink what you are trying to get at. When you are clearer in your own head what you are trying to say, I think you'll have better luck triggering the kind of discussion you are looking for.
Example: You say you are not looking for a 'big picture', but you use terms like decline and fall and those are clearly long term terms.
| Quote: |
i asked, "does it indicate america's ascendence in strength or decline in power."
|
Why does it necessarily need to indicate either one? Why can't it just be an event? Rome at its peak was not able to simply dictate every single aspect of it's will into compliance by a subservient world. A Roman legion was destroyed in the Teutoburg Forest during Augustus' reign. It can't be interpreted as a sign of Rome as being past its peak. Nor can the Jewish Revolt a couple of decades later. Britain lost control of all but Florida and Canada in 1783 but came back to dominate the entire 19th Century.
I can't help but think of the 23 year old who finds a single gray hair and goes into an emotional tailspin because he has one foot in the grave.
I'd like to make another point. The policies of the last 7 years are not necessarily reflective of long-term American policies. At this point, they are an aberration. After at least a century of pushing for collective security and international law, the current administration is attempting an overthrow of those policies. We can't know today if the Bush policies will last beyond Jan. '09 or not. My guess is that they won't. It is possible that when the historians of 2107 write their books, they will relegate Bush to the bottom of the pile when it comes to assessing the administrations of the present century. It's also possible that your grandkids will be speaking Chinese and the history books will focus on the 20th and 21st Centuries as the time of China's return to it's traditional premier status and everyone else's history as irrelevant trivia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It appears to me that The United States of America (quite sadly) entered a period of serious decline, not as a direct result of 911, but as a consequence of the Iraq war. It bagan about the same day that Bush declared victory. The ony question is: will we find new leaders capable of changing course before it's too late. Immediate, radical change is needed and none of the D's and R's have a clue what to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jhaelin
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
but i guess i wasn't seeking an academic historical analysis nor did i frame a "big picture" question.
i wasn't asking, "what is the importance of the 'war on terror'?".
i asked, "does it indicate america's ascendence in strength or decline in power."
|
I don't mean this response to be a personal attack. Your OP seems muddled and your response to me seems even more muddled. I think you should drop back and punt...meaning, rethink what you are trying to get at. When you are clearer in your own head what you are trying to say, I think you'll have better luck triggering the kind of discussion you are looking for.
Example: You say you are not looking for a 'big picture', but you use terms like decline and fall and those are clearly long term terms.
| Quote: |
i asked, "does it indicate america's ascendence in strength or decline in power."
|
Why does it necessarily need to indicate either one? Why can't it just be an event? Rome at its peak was not able to simply dictate every single aspect of it's will into compliance by a subservient world. A Roman legion was destroyed in the Teutoburg Forest during Augustus' reign. It can't be interpreted as a sign of Rome as being past its peak. Nor can the Jewish Revolt a couple of decades later. Britain lost control of all but Florida and Canada in 1783 but came back to dominate the entire 19th Century.
I can't help but think of the 23 year old who finds a single gray hair and goes into an emotional tailspin because he has one foot in the grave.
I'd like to make another point. The policies of the last 7 years are not necessarily reflective of long-term American policies. At this point, they are an aberration. After at least a century of pushing for collective security and international law, the current administration is attempting an overthrow of those policies. We can't know today if the Bush policies will last beyond Jan. '09 or not. My guess is that they won't. It is possible that when the historians of 2107 write their books, they will relegate Bush to the bottom of the pile when it comes to assessing the administrations of the present century. It's also possible that your grandkids will be speaking Chinese and the history books will focus on the 20th and 21st Centuries as the time of China's return to it's traditional premier status and everyone else's history as irrelevant trivia. |
i thought my post was pretty clear.
what exactly are you unclear about?
i'm sorry let me restate that,
what exactly do you find so muddled about the OP and my response?
what i intended by contrasting so called "big pictures" to framed questions was to indicate that the analogy you used (by quoting mao) doesn't seem to apply to the OP.
but what exactly is your point?
you can be very good at deconstructing views that are not your own, but if there is no personal opinion at the end of it, then what is it all for?
unless your opinion is only that we just can't know!
the OP evidently didn't provide the depth of scope your standards require.
perhaps it was too simplistic for you, as the OP framed the issue into a yes/no question.
but i hope you have an actual personal opinion on the question raised. otherwise, why did you even post a response?
are these current events then not worth assessing for you because they cannot be accurately viewed unless from the vantage of many years passed.
in viewing the history of the roman empire, such standards as you propose, should be used, because we need to have the most accurate and objective assessment possible. but it seems to me the only value for such history is in it's utility as a tool for drawing parallels and conclusions regarding current events.
if history can't help us to better understand what's happening now and guide us through the present, then what use is there for it?
if all that history can teach us is that we can't make judgements about today and that we can only do so of distant pasts, then we are truly just spectators.
anyway, i don't take your responses as an attack. although, i am still unsure what your intent was for posting...
thank you though for making me consider more carefully the assumptions i might have made in my postings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The sappy socialist do gooders seem to be having a great time predicting America's decline. Don't get your hopes up fellas. It is just a blip on the screen, just like Vietnam.
Consider 9/11, in the first few days Bush spoke of a "crusade". He should have stuck to that. In historical reality the original crusades were a counterattack against a rapant, barbaric Islam. This set could have been the same thing.
But Chirac et al had a hissy fit and rather than an all out war, like WWII a sort of hold the line war was fought, like Korea, Vietnam etc.
Bush now seems to be stuck in a spread democracy mode, when what the US should do is withdraw to bases in the Gulf States, Kurdistan, Diego Garcia and etc. Let the Sunnis and the Shi'a savage and kill each other off for spell. Take out Iran's immediate nuclear and missle technology with conventional weapons if they work and nukes if not.
Back Israel totally against the Palestinians. If the Russains grumble let them have a free hand with their dissident areas. Russia is going to need support down the road as China's covetous eyes go to Siberian resources. (Tom Clancy was just a little premature.)
China is just a 30 day blockade of oil from economic collapse. Pick the right time in a squabble over Taiwan. It will be necessary to put NMD into place.
Imperial American is a reality and has been for over 100 years. We are now in a clash of civilizations and we might as well get used to it.
Afghanistan and Iraq were a great don't "beep" with us or the cost will be more than you want. The lesson of Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima needs repeating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
what exactly do you find so muddled about the OP and my response?
|
What I found muddled was: It's a world war. No you're right, it isn't a world war. A world war is a war on terror, but it isn't a war...or something like that.
And yes, my personal opinion is that we can't possibly know at this point if the actions of the past 6 years are a sign of decline. In my view, all we can say at this point is Bush's policies are probably a poorly conceived response to an escalation (the relatively recent series of attacks on embassies--East Africa-- and military targets--USS Cole) in severity in the 30 + year problem with terrorists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jhaelin
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
What I found muddled was: It's a world war. No you're right, it isn't a world war. A world war is a war on terror, but it isn't a war...or something like that.
|
i think you miss understood me...
here was my response again:
| Quote: |
you're right...
it is probably debatable to use the term "world war" for the "war on terror".
i guess i used it loosely in the sense it is globally encompassing;
as the war on terror technically has no enemy states declared, yet every nation a potential enemy.
i thought i could use it to express the new state of what "world war" now means; i.e. "you're either with us or against us!" |
i agreed with you that it is "debatable" whether the war on terror was a world war.
but i was not agreeing with you that is isn't one.
to support my view i was saying that if the war on terror delineates the world into two camps, where you are either with the bush administration in combating it or against it, than wouldn't that constitute a world war?
and although all the world's nations haven't borne arms to battle, it seems to me that there are battle lines, with two opposing sides in most international affairs related to the war on terror.
but more importantly the OP was trying to suggest that perhaps the war on terror is a war for resources, and in this light it is most definitely a world war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axl Rose
Joined: 16 Feb 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
in my opinion, a truly strong global power would not need to resort to military strength to get its way,
as america was able to do for the most part since the end of ww2.
|
yes, we got our way with the north Vietnamese non-militarily didn't we?
jesus, do you folks have fake degrees? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:20 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
The sappy socialist do gooders seem to be having a great time predicting America's decline. Don't get your hopes up fellas. It is just a blip on the screen, just like Vietnam.
Consider 9/11, in the first few days Bush spoke of a "crusade". He should have stuck to that. In historical reality the original crusades were a counterattack against a rapant, barbaric Islam. This set could have been the same thing.
But Chirac et al had a hissy fit and rather than an all out war, like WWII a sort of hold the line war was fought, like Korea, Vietnam etc.
Bush now seems to be stuck in a spread democracy mode, when what the US should do is withdraw to bases in the Gulf States, Kurdistan, Diego Garcia and etc. Let the Sunnis and the Shi'a savage and kill each other off for spell. Take out Iran's immediate nuclear and missle technology with conventional weapons if they work and nukes if not.
Back Israel totally against the Palestinians. If the Russains grumble let them have a free hand with their dissident areas. Russia is going to need support down the road as China's covetous eyes go to Siberian resources. (Tom Clancy was just a little premature.)
China is just a 30 day blockade of oil from economic collapse. Pick the right time in a squabble over Taiwan. It will be necessary to put NMD into place.
Imperial American is a reality and has been for over 100 years. We are now in a clash of civilizations and we might as well get used to it.
Afghanistan and Iraq were a great don't "beep" with us or the cost will be more than you want. The lesson of Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima needs repeating. |
Implementing an oil bloackade against China (why would we even consider doing such a thing?) would be the beginning of the end, the end being not too far behind the beginning. I cannot understand why you think such a "strategy" would work in real life.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
