Who Should Be the Next Superpower?

[chound]

Most people say that US is "bad" "evil", etc (no doubt about it) Others say that if USSR came to power it would be as bad as US and so who according to you all should be the super power ? Please state your nationality and your place of residence and which ethnicity when you post.

 

[Pyrrhus]

Maybe because we don't need a superpower, but a conglomorate of nations working together with an agenda to care for the World citizens, i'd hardly call the UN a working model of this, especially when its founding members seems to obey it when they please, take for example the USA's Iraq War.

Spanish, Dominican Republic, Caucasian.

 

[PerennialII]

UN with member states committed to working for the UN rather than their vested interests. Pale Scandinavian.

 

[Daminc]

Britain used to have an Empire that would have been classed as a Super Power. Now however we have a Commonwealth of 53 countries holding about 1.8 billion people (30 percent of the worlds population). Which means that each country tries to act for the benefit for all members.

Large 'Superpowers', like the USSR and the US are doomed to failure. Not because of any particular idealology but because of the logistics of controlling and managing so many areas at once. It becomes unwieldly and slow, where decisions take years and years to effectivly operate by which time new problems have arisen etc, etc.

All Empires throughout history have met the same fate.

Welsh, Caucasian

 

[Art]

Britain used to have an Empire that would have been classed as a Super Power. Now however we have a Commonwealth of 53 countries holding about 1.8 billion people (30 percent of the worlds population). Which means that each country tries to act for the benefit for all members.

Large 'Superpowers', like the USSR and the US are doomed to failure. Not because of any particular idealology but because of the logistics of controlling and managing so many areas at once. It becomes unwieldly and slow, where decisions take years and years to effectivly operate by which time new problems have arisen etc, etc.

All Empires throughout history have met the same fate.

Welsh, Caucasian

Fully agree - History is littered with the ashes of past empires. In most instances the collapse started from within. The USA will eventually go the same way.
China could also be considered a 'superpower' It's not so visible on the world stage as it follows an 'isolationist' style policy but in terms of destructive capability it's certainly up there with the best.

 

[Burnsys]

I think tomorrow superpowers will be no more countrys and will be corporations. or at least Groups of corporations..

The trilateral comision, and the bliderbergs.
http://www.trilateral.org/

Burn, Argentina, Caucasian

 

[Smurf]

US and USSR both fail(ed) to take care of their citizens, as did Britain and Rome, as will China and as would the Trilateral Commission and Bilderbergs. If a supreme leader is in control he will abuse the populace, if the masses are in control, they will destroy the world with their ignorance. In short, humans are incapable and incompetent of taking care of themselves.

Caucasian, Canadian/French, Canada

 

[vanesch]

In short, humans are incapable and incompetent of taking care of themselves.

I'm not ! So I should be in charge !

UeberMensch, Belgian, France.

 

[kaos]

I would rather have no superpower that imposes its power on other nations. My country held a neutral stance on both sides since its creation. THe smaller countries should be wary of any "superpower" wether it is the US or USSR or whatever. THat said, it was better from our perspective when the USSR still existed.It was a counterbalance to the US and kept it in check. Now we can see the effects of a lone superpower having its way .

Malaysian ,Malaysia, Chinese

 

[Art]

I'm not ! So I should be in charge !

UeberMensch, Belgian, France.

Okay Vanesch you can be in charge of yourself but only for a 30 day trial period

 

[hypatia]

I also think that given time, the super powers will fail. I would hope something along the lines of a World Council will emerge. Perhaps a few steps up from the UN.

Native American, USA

 

[Daminc]

Hey Kaos, just a bit of trivia. Malaysia joined the British Commonwealth back in 1957. Have you had a personal experience on how that's affected your country?

I would hope something along the lines of a World Council will emerge.

It will have the same problem as a Superpower where disagreements will prevent anything going forward. The only way to solve this would be:

Dictatorship (not a good idea)
Majority vote (leaving millions unhappy with itchy trigger fingers).

 

[vanesch]

Okay Vanesch you can be in charge of yourself but only for a 30 day trial period

Ha, can you tell that to my wife ? :tongue2:

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[franznietzsche]

Britain used to have an Empire that would have been classed as a Super Power. Now however we have a Commonwealth of 53 countries holding about 1.8 billion people (30 percent of the worlds population). Which means that each country tries to act for the benefit for all members.

Large 'Superpowers', like the USSR and the US are doomed to failure. Not because of any particular idealology but because of the logistics of controlling and managing so many areas at once. It becomes unwieldly and slow, where decisions take years and years to effectivly operate by which time new problems have arisen etc, etc.

All Empires throughout history have met the same fate.

Welsh, Caucasian

This argument is flawed. In old empires it took months for information to travel from one part of the world to another. Now it takes seconds. While I agree that large empires all inevitably fall, it has nothing to do with what you're saying. Its far more related to corruption and self-serving interests. When there becomes a dichotomy between the ideology and the reality, that is when empires fall.

 

[franznietzsche]

I'm not ! So I should be in charge !

UeberMensch, Belgian, France.

Not the least bit arrogant. [/sarcasm]

And its ubermensch.

 

[russ_watters]

People also need to remember that "superpower" and "empire" are not synonomous.

 

[kaos]

Hey Kaos, just a bit of trivia. Malaysia joined the British Commonwealth back in 1957. Have you had a personal experience on how that's affected your country?


.

As far as i know it didnt affect my country much. But the commonwealth did help us with communist insurgency that my country experienced in the 40s-60s. British and Australian troops help fight the commmunist who were mainly ethnic chinese who had loyalty to mainland China . The commonwealth also help us face Indonesia in the confrontation(indonesia did not recognise malaysia and regarded some malaysian territory as theirs).

As for personal experience, there is none i can think of.

 

[vanesch]

And its ubermensch.

No, the U takes an umlaut, but you can replace that with an -e on a US ascii keyboard...

 

[Daminc]

This argument is flawed. In old empires it took months for information to travel from one part of the world to another. Now it takes seconds. While I agree that large empires all inevitably fall, it has nothing to do with what you're saying. Its far more related to corruption and self-serving interests. When there becomes a dichotomy between the ideology and the reality, that is when empires fall.

The 'flaw' in the argument is that it wasn't complete. Corruption and self-serving interests also play a part in the downfall of a superpower. I was referring to examples such as:

1) If a one leader has a small group of people to lead then there usually can come to some consensus that is good for the group.

In larger groups there will a greater number of people who are dissatisfied with their leaders decisions and more people will think they can lead better which, in turn, can fracture a group more.

In Superpowers that problem is amplified greatly.

2) The EU is a budding superpower but the problems I've mentioned are highlighted there in spades. The retification will never come about as long as one country disagrees with it and as the EU grows, the chance of that grows as well.

People also need to remember that "superpower" and "empire" are not synonomous.

No, but they are equivalent when you are comparing histories.

 

[Art]

This argument is flawed. In old empires it took months for information to travel from one part of the world to another. Now it takes seconds. While I agree that large empires all inevitably fall, it has nothing to do with what you're saying. Its far more related to corruption and self-serving interests. When there becomes a dichotomy between the ideology and the reality, that is when empires fall.

Information may flow in seconds but troops to quell unrest take longer. The military buildup for the Iraq war took months and that was despite starting with a fairly sizable force already in situ. I believe America's world-reach will start to diminish fairly soon for three reasons.
1) the Copernican principle would suggest so.
2) America is already over-stretching herself in terms of overseas military commitments to keep a lid on the countries it now occupies and manning overseas bases in world hot spots. They are now finding it difficult recruiting sufficient numbers for the armed forces.
3) The cost of maintaining their current level of military interventions are huge and are stretching the American economy to breaking point. Eventually the deficit will have to be met with higher taxes or reduced spending on domestic programs, both of which will greatly affect public support for foreign adventures.

 

[cronxeh]

And there, for a moment in time, I thought you totally forgot about the nuclear warheads.

The reason why United States is persuing airborn chemical laser program is for those exact reasons - to have a defense against inbound nuclear/biological/chemical warheads, so that the United States didnt depend solely on the troops on the ground - you can launch a nuclear warhead at any city and it will reach it's target in matter of minutes.

There is still a post- cold war development going on, but today the agenda is about terrorists. Some claim that the United States is being an evil empire and conquering other nations and puttings its nose in places they don't belong. Well duh, Sherlock, what are you going to do about it? Throughout the course of human history it has always been aboud dominance and power - from tribes to kings to feudalism, in modern times you have patents and corporations and increasingly the politicians with their own agenda - which has little to do with actual office description to which they have been sworn into


Born in Russia, reside in USA, Caucasian

 

[Art]

And there, for a moment in time, I thought

Yes it shows my dear Watson, well done!

The rest of your post was 'I presume' extemporaneous.

Sherlock

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Not the least bit arrogant. [/sarcasm]

And its ubermensch.

hey, if anyone would know the spelling it would be nietzsche! :)

 

[vanesch]

hey, if anyone would know the spelling it would be nietzsche! :)

One would think so, but he doesn't :tongue2:
Again, it is (U-umlaut) B E R M E N S C H.
But U - umlaut is allowed to be written as ue if it cannot be typed correctly for technical reasons.
In the same way, you have Erwin S C H R (O-umlaut) D I N G E R, which can be written Erwin Schroedinger.

Der Mensch ist ein Seil, geknüpft zwischen Tier und Übermensch, - ein Seil über einem Abgrunde", sagt Nietzsche in "Also sprach Zarathustra".

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

One would think so, but he doesn't :tongue2:
Again, it is (U-umlaut) B E R M E N S C H.
But U - umlaut is allowed to be written as ue if it cannot be typed correctly for technical reasons.
In the same way, you have Erwin S C H R (O-umlaut) D I N G E R, which can be written Erwin Schroedinger.

Der Mensch ist ein Seil, geknüpft zwischen Tier und Übermensch, - ein Seil über einem Abgrunde", sagt Nietzsche in "Also sprach Zarathustra".

"Thus Spake Zarathustra" has got to be one of my favorite philosophical stories of all time. It has been awhile, but I remember starting at page 1 and not stopping until it was done.

 

[Art]

hey, if anyone would know the spelling it would be nietzsche! :)

I'd go with Vanesch - He's from Belgium and they all seem to speak about 50 languages. Even their street signs are in a few different languages.

 

[Zantra]

People are starting to view the US as an overbearing superpower imposing their views where they don't belong. What people aren't taking into account is that there's enoughn negative connotations to this war- from the negative impact on the enconomy to the deteriorating foreign policy, that most likely this war won't extend much beyond the current administration. When 9/11 hit everyone got on the war band wagon. Justice had to be served. But as the months and even years progress, people are starting to come to their senses. With no WMD and now that it's looking like we went into this war blindfolded, people will be looking for a change in 2008. The next guy has a big job ahead of him. Hopefully the next president can begin to mend fences.

English/french/american indian in the US

 

[Daminc]

the negative impact on the enconomy to the deteriorating foreign policy, that most likely this war won't extend much beyond the current administration.

Which is why a lot of people (in Britain at least) was surprised that Bush was voted back in.

In the UK Blair has lost a lot of support over the War and it was only because of the track record of strengthening the economy and other plans that he got back in (that, and the fact that Mr Howard was the only serious rival and people trusted him even less than Blair).

 

[Art]

Which is why a lot of people (in Britain at least) was surprised that Bush was voted back in.

In the UK Blair has lost a lot of support over the War and it was only because of the track record of strengthening the economy and other plans that he got back in (that, and the fact that Mr Howard was the only serious rival and people trusted him even less than Blair).

Despite the media in Britain trying to turn the British general election into a referendum on the war, numerous polls conducted both before and after the election showed people listed it very low in their priorities.
The Labour party lost some support because they have not yet fully delivered on health, education and crime. They were still returned with a large majority and bear in mind because of the reduction in Scottish representation in Westminster they lost 19 seats before a vote was cast.
The fact is, polls showed a little over 50% of the British public support the war and of the balance the majority are appathetic.

 

[Daminc]

"polls showed a little over 50% of the British public support the war "

The disagreement about the war is not whether we should have gone to war or not but the information and reasons for going to war were false (or at least stretched pretty thin).

It's a difficult job being the PM and I think, at the moment, he's probably best for the job, especially considering the other candidates. But I strongly believe that war should be the last resort no matter what. The idealology of "get them before they get us" only promotes the reasons why wars happen in the first place.

because of the reduction in Scottish representation in Westminster they lost 19 seats before a vote was cast.

I didn't know that, thanks :)

p.s. I've stopped having faith in the British media a long time ago. They should report the news and leave the politics to the politicians.

 

[Art]

bear in mind because of the reduction in Scottish representation in Westminster they lost 19 seats

To be precise there were 13 less seats in Scotland (all former Labour safe seats) and boundary changes removed Labour's safe seat status in a further 6

 

[himanshu121]

China + India + Russia = New World Super power

 

[plus]

The islamic world although not a single country works together in many respects. This is a growing power in the world. Also they have growing influence in the areas which attract immigration.

Obviously the massive populations of china and India give superpower status.

 

[heman]

China + India + Russia = New World Super power

what is the basis of yours argument?

 

[Zantra]

Which is why a lot of people (in Britain at least) was surprised that Bush was voted back in.

In the UK Blair has lost a lot of support over the War and it was only because of the track record of strengthening the economy and other plans that he got back in (that, and the fact that Mr Howard was the only serious rival and people trusted him even less than Blair).

And I could be counted among the surprised