Superpower: its a tough job but somebody's got to do it.

I am going to skip items 1 – 3 because they are opinion and I can’t argue with opinion, everyone is entitled to theirs. IMO none of your opinions is worth a single American life. Now if YOU want to go fight for these “ideals” I have no problem with that. Gather up all like minded and willing fellow Americans, organize a volunteer militia force, and go fight to your hearts content. We even have a precedent in the Spanish Civil War. Let’s just hope your “allies” in Syria don’t shoot you in the back simply for being Americans.

Sherman123 said:

4. I think calling it ethnocentric is more racist than actually being a proponent of it. Liberty is not an American value, it is one commonly shared by mankind. Likewise democracy is not uniquely American, it is something desired by most all humans on this planet. There are inflections, cultural adjustments, and the like but the clarion call is clear.

Click to expand...

Ethnocentrism is the belief one’s culture is superior to all others. That’s exactly what you are displaying. Democracy is not a new idea, it’s been around for nearly 4,000 years. Strangely it hasn’t seem to have taken until fairly recently, and even OUR government is not a true “democracy.”

It is NOT desired by “most all humans,” since many cultures have a sincere faith in monarchies, theocracies, socialist republics, even tribalism to name a few. I’m sure they could all be indoctrinated into a form of democracy, but the reverse is just as true.

Sherman123 said:

5. I do not think it was the example of the US that led to the collapse of the USSR, this is romanticism. Of course our existence is essential in posing an alternative model to people across the globe but it is not enough. What if Gorbachev had sent troops into Poland instead of leaving the Polish Communist Party to its fate? What if the troops that were dispatched to the Baltic States never left? As for the Shah what if the Iranian military had not deserted? Then the crowds would have been butchered, the prisons filled, and again autocracy would have won the day…It was not destiny that the Soviet Union found its grave in 1991 else how has North Korea endured? Popular will sometimes triumphs, sometimes it is crushed with overwhelming force. Being a symbol doesn't stop that from happening.

Click to expand...

It is enough. Had Gorbachov ordered the troops into Poland, they would have gone and crushed the Polish reforms just like they did in each case during the 1950’s. The whole effort would have collapsed and we would still be facing the U.S.S.R. today. The difference between Russia and North Korea? North Korea is truly a totalitarian state, the people literally have no access to Western ideals it is so like George Orwell’s 1984 there.

Russian’s could see, and were allowed to be exposed, to Western consumerism; and they wanted more. Gorbachev and his followers allowed this, and he is the true hero of the revolution.

Sherman123 said:

6. I understand that but the essential point is that I don't care. Of course I wouldn't appreciate it. I'm sure those alive during the Cold War didn't appreciate the efforts of the Soviet Union to spread it's influence and form of government. But that's the point. You are not a passive player in the world, and I've picked my side. What do I think of fascistic thugs like Assad? Like Kim Jong Un? I'm uninterested in their political or ethical perspectives--I want them to perish.

Click to expand...

Of course you don’t care. It’s evident in your whole position. You are such a zealot you literally do not care about how many OTHER American lives you are willing to spend to achieve your personal ideals.

Your “endless list” is B/S. The people of Kosovo were kicking butt without our help and so were the people of Libya; Saddam should have been erased during the FIRST war or more properly way back when before we were propping up his regime because he was fighting Iran. The more you name the more you typically find (with minor exceptions like Grenada) we not only screwed up big time, we either originated the problem or we made things worse.

Sherman123 said:

Hope and people power can only topple a regime when the regime allows itself to be toppled and force is no longer an option. When it doesn't the blood flows in the streets and liberty dies.

Click to expand...

Untrue, as shown by Iran, Russia, India, South Africa, Cuba, Nicaragua, Argentina…hell MY list is truly “endless.” Note, they were not all “democratic” victories in the sense they followed our example of government, but they were all popular rebellions against controlling forms of government and the people decided what form the new government would take.


The bottom line? if you want to go chasing windmills...be my guest. Don't foist your ideology onto the rest of us. We'll exercise our freedom to choose as well and then live with the consequences one issue at a time thank you very much.

Gathomas88 said:

Unfortunately, "rights" don't have a single thing to do with it one way or the other.

The simple fact of the matter is that someone is always going to be on top, and that this nation is always going to have the ability, and very likely the inclination, to exercise that power over others to some degree or another.

Thankfully for the rest of the world, the US happens to be a rather subdued hegemon on the whole (at least in comparison to past global leaders like the Roman Empire, Spaniards, or USSR). However, we cannot really say for sure whether a world dominated by the Chinese or Russians would be similar in this regard.

All things being equal, I'd simply rather not take the risk. :shrug:

We should attempt to remain the "sole" global superpower for as long as we are able.

Click to expand...

The argument isn't whether or not to retain superpower status; it is how to USE that status in the world at large.

I believe that we should build strong alliances, and try to maintain friendly relations with both allies and other nations. I believe we should limit military intervention to self- defense, defense of allies, and any other treaty commitments we currently have or enter into.

That we act with restraint rather than like a bully. Entice rather than threaten. Mediate rather than choose sides. Provide humanitarian aid equally to all suffering parties regardless of the side they represent (unless they are our declared enemies). Use embargoes and sanctions if necessary.

But NEVER intervene militarily in the internal affairs of any sovereign nations unless we are at war with them. And I mean WAR as declared by Congress under our Constitutional separation of powers.

Captain Adverse said:

I am going to skip items 1 – 3 because they are opinion and I can’t argue with opinion, everyone is entitled to theirs. IMO none of your opinions is worth a single American life. Now if YOU want to go fight for these “ideals” I have no problem with that. Gather up all like minded and willing fellow Americans, organize a volunteer militia force, and go fight to our hearts content. We have a precedent in the Spanish Civil War. Let’s just hope your “allies” in Syria don’t shoot you in the back simply for being Americans.



Ethnocentrism is the belief one’s culture is superior to all others. That’s exactly what you are displaying. Democracy is not a new idea, it’s been around for nearly 5,000 years. Strangely it hasn’t seem to have taken until fairly recently, and even OUR government is not a true “democracy.”

It is NOT desired by “most all humans,” since many cultures have a sincere faith in monarchies, theocracies, socialist republics, even tribalism to name a few. I’m sure they could all be indoctrinated into a form of democracy, but the reverse is just as true.



It is enough. Had Gorbachov ordered the troops into Poland, they would have gone and crushed the Polish reforms just like they did in each case during the 1950’s. The whole effort would have collapsed and we would still be facing the U.S.S.R. today. The difference between Russia and North Korea? North Korea is truly a totalitarian state, the people literally have no access to Western ideals it is so like George Orwell’s 1984 there.
Russian’s could see, and were allowed to be exposed to Western consumerism, and they wanted more. Gorbachev and his followers allowed this, and he is the true hero of the revolution.



Of course you don’t care. It’s evident in your whole position. You are such a zealot you literally do not care about how many OTHER American lives you are willing to spend to achieve your personal ideals.

Your “endless list” is B/S. The people of Kosovo were kicking butt without our help and so were the people of Libya; Saddam should have been erased during the FIRST war or more properly way back when before we were propping up his regime because he was fighting Iran. The more you name the more you typically find (with minor exceptions like Grenada) we not only screwed up big time, we either originated the problem or we made things worse.



Untrue, as shown by Iran, Russia, India, South Africa, Cuba, Nicaragua, Argentina…hell MY list is truly “endless.” Note, they were not all “democratic” victories in the sense they followed our example of government, but they were all popular rebellions against controlling forms of government and the people decided what form the new government would take.


The bottom line? if you want to go chasing windmills...be my guest. Don't foist your ideology onto the rest of us. We'll exercise our freedom to choose as well and then live with the consequences one issue at a time thank you very much.

Click to expand...

1. If that's how you want to use ethnocentric I don't mind the appellation. Any group of people or country that opposes liberty and rule of the people is my enemy, luckily they tend to not predominate. Though I think it is incredibly humorous that you'd use the Spanish Civil War as a solid example considering the fact that the Republicans decisively lost the war and only the strong intervention from a Western democracy would have prevented the triumph of the Nationalists.

2. Even if we are just talking about raw number it is desired by the majority of people from India to Europe to Brazil. More importantly is that it is broadly desired by the majority of people on this earth whether in Iran, China or Saudi Arabia as evidenced by uprisings, political movements, and the like.

3. Then you understand my point. The Soviet Union did not need to collapse in 1989 if the decision to use force had been made the autumn of nations would never have occurred. Force is always the specter that could suppress any revolution.

4. There is nothing wrong with being zealous for liberty, democracy, and global peace.

5. The KLA was being savaged and that is what prompted the intervention. Benghazi was on the verge of being besieged and sacked by Gaddafi's troops when the first Western planes hit the country. It was only with our support that these revolutions were successful. Likewise with so many others.

6. All of those examples prove my point. How were they carried off? They succeeded because the regimes either refused or were unable to utilize force. Whenever a government or dictatorship is able to mobilize violence against the people it invariably succeeds or is forces the revolution to become violent if it is to survive. Force is necessary for those circumstances (and when the opportunity arises) where the people are unable to overthrow their government--which is frequently.

ttwtt78640 said:

Ending bloodshed in the middle east and Africa is mission impossible.

Click to expand...

I think the Middle East is a hopeless case. I'm more hopeful Africa will become more civilized. Nevertheless, getting out f the Middle East and ending our necessity of entanglement in all of their junk will coincide with a significant number of cars on the roads that require no gasoline. Give it up for Tesla Motors, the Nisan Leaf, the Chevy Volt and Spark and all the r&d going on right now improving the existing technology for better less expensive batteries and lightweight super-strong materials for car bodies. I happen to have full confidence in American innovation and ingenuity. I honesty do not get people who think America's ability to one up with something better is "unrealistic."

Captain Adverse said:

The argument isn't whether or not to retain superpower status; it is how to USE that status in the world at large.

I believe that we should build strong alliances, and try to maintain friendly relations with both allies and other nations. I believe we should limit military intervention to self- defense, defense of allies, and any other treaty commitments we currently have or enter into.

That we act with restraint rather than like a bully. Entice rather than threaten. Mediate rather than choose sides. Provide humanitarian aid equally to all suffering parties regardless of the side they represent (unless they are our declared enemies). Use embargoes and sanctions if necessary.

But NEVER intervene militarily in the internal affairs of any sovereign nations unless we are at war with them. And I mean WAR as declared by Congress under our Constitutional separation of powers.

Click to expand...

I agree to a certain extent. Unnecessary wars are expensive and impractical. They can also have a tendency to sap a nation's military strength and international standing over time.

That being said, however; total military non-intervention is never going to be a feasible possibility for a superpower with international interests to defend. Regardless of how noble the intentions behind them may happen to be, the simple fact of the matter is that most of our competitors are not going to limit themselves to "playing by the rules" you've established. As such, it doesn't do us any good to limit ourselves either.

I have absolutely no problem with the more "covert" forms of interventionism embraced by the United States during the Cold War, for instance, as they were absolutely necessary to ensure our security at the time. The Communists were using any and all means available to them to try and spread their international influence, and it was necessary that we curtail this advance if we were going to survive on any long term basis.

Trusting the Soviets and their allies to avoid meddling in the affairs of the developing world would've been folly at best, and blatantly disastrous at worst.

Frankly, the same is true of Russia and China today. Relying upon mankind's "better nature" to solve problems tends to be a less than effective strategy even at the best of times. It is absolutely preposterous when used regarding matters of defense, international relations, or game theory.

On the international stage, we are all ultimately either predators or prey. Even when we do abide by one another, it is only because there is something to be gained from it that could not be reliably taken by force.

Smeagol said:

I think the Middle East is a hopeless case. I'm more hopeful Africa will become more civilized. Nevertheless, getting out f the Middle East and ending our necessity of entanglement in all of their junk will coincide with a significant number of cars on the roads that require no gasoline. Give it up for Tesla Motors, the Nisan Leaf, the Chevy Volt and Spark and all the r&d going on right now improving the existing technology for better less expensive batteries and lightweight super-strong materials for car bodies. I happen to have full confidence in American innovation and ingenuity. I honesty do not get people who think America's ability to one up with something better is "unrealistic."

Click to expand...

It is also not unrealistic to think that more use of domestic (and Canadian) shale oil/gas (from fracking) cannot replace the 40% of our oil now obtained from OPEC.

Institute for Energy Research | Petroleum (Oil)

ttwtt78640 said:

It is also not unrealistic to think that more use of domestic (and Canadian) shale oil/gas (from fracking) cannot replace the 40% of our oil now obtained from OPEC.

Institute for Energy Research | Petroleum (Oil)

Click to expand...

Exactly. We have vast amounts of alternate energy resources available HERE in territory we control. Our Oil industry simply does not want to expend much invetment capital to exploit them until it has to, since they already have a well-developed system with the Middle East suppliers. I think they may have been buying up likely resource areas though to prevent anyone else from exploiting them before THEY are ready to.

I believe it should be a priority one national goal to get out from under foreign oil dependency ASAP.

Captain Adverse said:

Exactly. We have vast amounts of alternate energy resources available HERE in territory we control. Our Oil industry simply does not want to expend much invetment capital to exploit them until it has to, since they already have a well-developed system with the Middle East suppliers. I think they may have been buying up likely resource areas though to prevent anyone else from exploiting them before THEY are ready to.

I believe it should be a priority one national goal to get out from under foreign oil dependency ASAP.

Click to expand...

A lot of very rich folks disagree and have their own agendas, which then become our agenda due to their control of our congress critter's campaign cash.

Captain Adverse said:

Exactly. We have

vast amounts of alternate energy resources available HERE

Click to expand...

in territory we control. Our Oil industry simply does not want to expend much invetment capital to exploit them until it has to, since they already have a well-developed system with the Middle East suppliers. I think they may have been

buying up likely resource areas

Click to expand...

though to prevent anyone else from exploiting them before THEY are ready to.

I believe it should be a priority one national goal to get out from under foreign oil dependency ASAP.

Click to expand...

such as .....

bubbabgone said:

such as .....

Click to expand...

The first article is a July 2012 report of energy resources in the USA.

Unleashing the North American Energy Colossus: Hydrocarbons Can Fuel Growth and Prosperity

This is an article regarding oil industry investment in natural gas.

Big Oil Companies Move Toward Natural Gas


Like I said I "think" major oil companies are buying up likely resource areas, primarily because it is the smart thing to do. I suppose I could research each major oil company's annual report to find which ones might be doing so...but I am just too lazy.

Captain Adverse said:

The first article is a July 2012 report of energy resources in the USA.

Unleashing the North American Energy Colossus: Hydrocarbons Can Fuel Growth and Prosperity

This is an article regarding oil industry investment in natural gas.

Big Oil Companies Move Toward Natural Gas


Like I said I "think" major oil companies are buying up likely resource areas, primarily because it is the smart thing to do. I suppose I could research each major oil company's annual report to find which ones might be doing so...but I am just too lazy.

Click to expand...

You said big oil was buying up "alternate" energy resources. I read that as "alternative" resources.

Smeagol said:

There's a lot of sentiment lately over scaling back America's role outside of our own borders. The position of "global beacon of democracy," "the world's only remaining superpower," etc., etc., comes with what some consider to be a duty to therest of the world that includes being the world's police in the most extreme cases of state sponsored terror. Some accept tgat we have that as part of who we are. Others think only if and when we get a consensus and cooperation from most other governments albeit with our leadership. Others still take the position that its not our concern when atrocities occur outside of the United States. Nature hates a vacuum however and if we turn our backs on the role of global peacekeepers I wonder is the isolationists has considered that and if so do they have a preference on how the world community should respond to atrocities.

Click to expand...

There was no "its no one's job" option so I voted other.

bubbabgone said:

You said big oil was buying up "alternate" energy resources. I read that as "alternative" resources.

Click to expand...

Bubba, I trust the instincts of the big oil boys. They took a bottom-line monetary hit on wind/solar when they determined it wasn't for them at this time. I'll go along with what they decide they should do now. :thumbs:

polgara said:

Bubba, I trust the instincts of the big oil boys. They took a bottom-line monetary hit on wind/solar when they determined it wasn't for them at this time. I'll go along with what they decide they should do now. :thumbs:

Click to expand...

I think I mis-read what the Captain had said.

bubbabgone said:

You said big oil was buying up "alternate" energy resources. I read that as "alternative" resources.

Click to expand...

Go back and look at what you quoted from me.

I am not responsible for how you take things.

It is also clear that I am not stating a "fact" but only what I "think they may have been," so I don't get your point.

I have said all this before...
Move the UN to Jerusalem - where the action is...or as close as possible...
Give the UN authority to save lives, to intervene as necessary..
Now, the UN does nothing - or so it seems...
why ?

gunner said:

Goshin, do you accept America's economic interests are of a 'global nature'?

Paul

Click to expand...

They are at this time yes. However, that isn't in and of itself a sufficient reason for sticking our nose into every third conflict on the planet, IMO. Furthermore, I think we need to draw those horns in a little and care more about what's going on at home than halfway around the world... we have real troubles here that need to be dealt with, beams that need to be pulled before we worry about the mote in our brother's eye.

Smeagol said:

Ah, thus the root reason we are seemingly more interested in the Mid-East and the Mid-West. The free flow of oil and stability in the oil rich Middle East is our vital interest and has driven nearly of of our foreign policy since the end of the Cold War where even then it placed second.

Click to expand...

That has a lot to do with it yes. Thing is though, the majority of our oil imports don't come from the Middle East anymore. We import a huge amount from South America, for instance, but you don't see us intervening there twice per decade.

Goshin said:

They are at this time yes. However, that isn't in and of itself a sufficient reason for sticking our nose into every third conflict on the planet, IMO. Furthermore, I think we need to draw those horns in a little and care more about what's going on at home than halfway around the world... we have real troubles here that need to be dealt with, beams that need to be pulled before we worry about the mote in our brother's eye.

Click to expand...

The gas attacks and the location are the problems here. Had it been small arms in the middle of Africa, the football trades would have been ahead of them on the local news.

Goshin said:

That has a lot to do with it yes. Thing is though, the majority of our oil imports don't come from the Middle East anymore. We import a huge amount from South America, for instance, but you don't see us intervening there twice per decade.

Click to expand...

That's because it is mostly under control, just the way we like it.

Let somebody else work the Middle East. Too many Americans have died there already.

Ray410 said:

Let somebody else work the Middle East for awhile. Too many Americans have died there already.

Click to expand...

Like Russia and Iran you mean? That ain't gonna happen.

Goshin said:

They are at this time yes. However, that isn't in and of itself a sufficient reason for sticking our nose into every third conflict on the planet, IMO. Furthermore, I think we need to draw those horns in a little and care more about what's going on at home than halfway around the world... we have real troubles here that need to be dealt with, beams that need to be pulled before we worry about the mote in our brother's eye.

Click to expand...

Good evening, Goshin. :2wave:

:agree:

Well said! :thumbs: The fluff being passed off as "critical issues" is getting to be tiresome blah blah blah! A little less talking and a lot more getting necessary things done is necessary now! What is DC waiting for? :2mad:

ttwtt78640 said:

It is also not unrealistic to think that more use of domestic (and Canadian) shale oil/gas (from fracking) cannot replace the 40% of our oil now obtained from OPEC.

Institute for Energy Research | Petroleum (Oil)

Click to expand...

I agree...sort of. The problem is how oil is sold, at least in the west. That idea sounds really good on paper but it shows there's a lot of misunderstanding out there in a country where the oil industry is not nationalized. We cannot just pump oil in the west and expect that to replace oil from the Mid East. The industry operates on a profit driven mo, as well it should.

1. Geologists determine where in the ground is there oil.
2. Big dollar investors or speculators buy the rights for oil from the land owners that wil be pumped out of the ground on a future date, say a one month period next year, but pays the land owners now in hopes of being able to resell it to a refinery anywhere in the workd for more than they pay for next year's drilling today. This by the way, helps to make gas mor expensive.
3. In order to manipulate supply downward and drive up costs even more, OPEC sits on a lot of the global supply and agrees with other OPEC members to only allow so much oil to come out of OPEC countries but they also pre-sell their oil to the speculators.
4. One the future date arrives the speculators own the oil and then resell it to the refinery that offers the most money, be it in America, China, Europe or wherever. This includes oil drilled from America. The only effect domestic drilling will have on middle eastern oil is create a greater global supply. What OPEC might do in response is figure they've got a lot of money in the bank and reduce what they allow to be pumped in order to keep prices high and decide to sell more of it in the future when it'll probably be worth more anyway. More domestic drilling will in fact be the best insurance policy the terrorists and dictators could have because as long as we're remaining totally committed to continuing the monolpy, they can be assured in the long term viability of their only natural resource. As long as we aren't picking up our marbles and going home, they get keep selling their oil too. So yes, shale and domestic drilling will add to the global oil supply, which would likely be eaten up by reducing OPEC quotas so prices will remain high, the dictators and terrorists still get money; maybe not as much but its better for them that we're in the business too rather than eliminate the need for their product. And because the Mid East will continue to be a significant player, we'd still need to subsidize the oil industry with a costly investment in military security for the region.

Smeagol said:

No but again being realistic. I think there has been a history of America "coincidentally" dropping bombs near heads of state. If Assad is "accidentally" hit, I can't imagine that not resulting in an end to the bloodshed. In fact, I'm pretty much expecting Assad to either be killed in the US attack or his location damaged just enough to cause injury and be takes into custody by the opposition. Just watch.

Click to expand...

I do not think US will attack while has lost the media battle. Putin wan the media battle in this round. Whatever Assad did was hyped with US and allies media but managed to be successfully trivialized with that of Putin's.

Assad shot schoolchildren due to grafiti, and people that went to the funeral of those shot schoolchildren, to the point that the population rebelled (USA) well those rebels eat heart and liver, and are associated with USA's enemies and terrorists (Putin). Assad ordered civilians to be gassed (USA) but there is no proof that it is Assad and maybe was the rebels killing their own to attract an intervention (Putin).

Before the media wins over the attitudes of the masses it is unlikely that a strike will be made for it may be futile and done for the face of a president (i.e., not to bring down Assad, nor liberate, just a bit of missiling wont do much harm!). This is a game of Risk and it is exactly how we here play it. Except that these guys do it over dead people's bodies (reason why I did not do politics!).

It is now up to the congress. If congress chooses to go ahead with it then it should with a new momentum and regain another media strike before Putin manages to trivialize it yet again. But Putin plays it smart. He could send media strikes while congress makes a decision. Namely for example that USA gassed those civilians and are now preparing for a congress approved unlawful war.

Those would be tough grounds to conduct military strikes after! Unless refuted of course.