And we're still on the brink of collapse, China is on the rise, terrorism is still as big a concern as it ever was. Foreign affairs doesn't happen in a vacuum and domestically we are reeling. All this money spent (borrowed from China) and the middle east is as unstable as ever (or more so).
A One-world government is 300 years away. There is a lot of political and economic evolution that must take place before that could happen. Lots of implacable enemies remain. Maintaining our best national interests does not require that we control the world. Only that we control the capability to influence any part of the world that is required to assure our best national interests. Where does this one-world nonsense come from? You haven't heard it from me. We keep the sea lanes open for commerce. It is our global reach that allows this. Without the US Navy rogue countries could cause far worse problems than Somali Pirates. That hasn't happened for 200 years because of the British navy in the 19th century and the American navy in the 20th. With a few diesel submarines, entire oceans could be closed to commerce every time two middle-eastern countries get into a squabble. In wartime we can keep the sea lanes open to our friends and deny them to our enemies. Don't be naive. Throughout history strong countries have dominated small countries. It is the natural way of things. It's always best to be at the top of the mountain. "Democracy" doesn't work in the world of international politics. A pecking order must be established and it is constantly tested. How is sending 100 counter-insurgency instructors to a small African country at their request constitute abusing our power?
This is ridiculous. We are nowhere near collapse. We have the biggest economy, the most stable democracy, and the most powerful military on the planet. No we aren't. We're in a period of slow economic growth, but it ain't a recession. We have too much debt, but we are not and can never be in a crisis like Greece. Unemployment is high but nowhere near as high as the world average. The Productivity of the US worker is still the highest in the world. Inflation is low and Americans are saving money better than ever before.
I believe we have historical debt, but let's don't worry ourselves with that. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
I'd wager we're much closer than 300 years, particularly if the dollar loses its stranglehold on the world. China is filling the void we're leaving as our debt constricts us. A strong military and a sound foreign policy can maintain this, we don't need imposed outposts around the world. It allows nations like Germany and South Korea to spend money on things other than national defense and puts us at a disadvantage. We can compete in a global economy without strongarming nations into buying our goods, and if we have to up domestic production of certain goods because of certain difficult regimes, so be it. Increasing domestic production of fundamental goods would be to the benefit of our national security and stability. Not saying you've argued for it, just carrying out the global economy argument to a logical end. I like a strong navy. To the detriment of the world. We can be at the top of the pecking order without perpetually imposing our will around the world. We are blessed to be geographically isolated from most of the world, and a strong national defense, foreign policy, and intelligence community can protect us from most of the world's threats. Asking other nations to step up to the big boy table so we don't have to shoulder their burden would benefit the world and our stability. Sending our military in at the request of another nation closely resembles treating our military as a mercenary force. Aren't there private companies that could serve in that capacity? By sending in troops we are choosing sides and getting too involved in complex foreign entanglements.
I'll agree with the military part, which does provide us a certain degree of stability. But a global economic collapse and a change in the reserve currency of the world would severely hamper our military might. Amidst a global chaotic event consider what an ambitious budding superpower could achieve in relation to a terrorist network like al-Qaeda. Our economic stability is wavering as our debt continues to grow exponentially, with no indication from DC that our government is willing to act responsibly. The fed is cooking books - if China is gaming their currency, we aren't? And there are those that want to get into a trade war with our largest debtor? We are heavily reliant on the global economy, cripplingly so if poop hits the fan. iPhones and laptops can only sustain us so far. I don't believe we are too big to fail and I don't think ambitious budding superpowers would shed too many tears or waste much time jockeying for position if a global bubble burst and we were left floundering.
I can post the info later, but Chinas growth isn't sustainable. Work wages in china grow at a pace that is almost 5Xs that of the US.
They aren't imposed they are there by request or by treaty obligation. South Korea has the fourth largest army in the world. What are you talking about? Who said anything about strongarming nations into buying our goods? Only in a fantasy world. In some ways, yes. But in other ways it puts us at a clear disadvantage. I don't think you understand what mercenaries are. We don't send them in to act at the behest of another nation. We send them in to protect our national interests. We didn't fight Saddam in 1991 to protect Saudi Arabia, we went to protect our oil supply.
We are in no danger of collapse. Period. Moreover in the event of a world economic crisis, we are in better shape than any other country to weather it. What is your evidence? Who are these budding Superpowers? China is totally screwed in a world economic collapse. They can't even protect their own sea lanes and they are completely dependent on Dollars and Euros. They are nowhere close to being a superpower. The US is not a weak country in danger of collapse. Where do you get this notion?
