The collapse of American civilization as we know it

[Eirene_DGP]

Originally posted by Imthechamp
The immigrants from mexico/africa/asia will take over America

Funny you said that...I had a conversation with some friends about immigration and I think the U.S will remain on top as long as we continue to allow "the best, brightest, and wealthiest" immigrants from overseas. My theory is if we close the borders, they will stay in their own countries and build themselves up so the U.S will have some more competition.

[James]

I think that everyone is essentially correct if we put all the ideas together. Although I don't agree about closing the borders.

Unless there is a major collapse, natural disaster, war etc. the US will continue.

But it will change. Shift over time in small ways that tend to equal big ways.

The immediate trend I see, post 9/11, is more laws on the books that will affect civil liberties, prviate rights will be more restricted and technology is being used more fluidly to monitor us.

For example, ever see a patrol car just kind of slowly rolling through a parking lot? A lot of times he is running everyone's plates on his lap top to see their status. And then he'll wait for them to leave and pull them over.

It will be interesting to see the changes in the states as Law Enforcement finds ways to use their new powers.

Getting back to the original point.

The US will have fallen when the gap between what we say our values are, the Bill of Rights (Freedoms) and the Constitution, and what is actually happening becomes so great the original idea of the country has been lost.

In the name of whatever cause.

What is that quote?

Your actions speak so loudly I can't hear what you are saying?

[bcdphie]

I believe it will inevitably happen: all other major empires have fallen.

As far as when or how, I am not too sure.


Who will become the next superpower:

1) Realistically: the EU

2) A superpower that would be interesting to see, but probably won't happen anytime soon, if ever: Canada or Australia.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by bcdphie
I believe it will inevitably happen: all other major empires have fallen.

As far as when or how, I am not too sure.


Who will become the next superpower:

1) Realistically: the EU

2) A superpower that would be interesting to see, but probably won't happen anytime soon, if ever: Canada or Australia.

The EU has already rejected that role and has minimized itself by limiting its military influence. Its economic structure is also really fragile right now so I found it funny that you picked them. Even their role in the UN is shrinking.

Just so you all know, the US is not an empire and it is, inherently, different from and in a different environment than any other nation-state. I've never heard anyone who thinks the US will fall, BUT people do consider the development of one other superpower in a relatively short amount of time. That would be China.

-Rudey
--Oh and we purchased Canada when we got Alaska...didn't anyone tell you?

[Optimist Prime]

The U.S. won't fall per se. But, it will lend itself to probablly NATO a lot more, after citenzens get tired of direct warfare. AS far as the E.U. goes, well, they did the money thing to stablize Europe. The (De)Mark was very strong and the Lire was rather weak. It just puts close neighbors on an even playiing field.

[Coramoor]

I'm in the Army and I always see the US contributing more and being the first ones into a danger zone whenever the UN is involved. Which I think it total BS.

I am an American soldier and I see no need to risk US lives for other countries-other than in protecting our own self-interests. Selfish? Yes, but nothing is wrong with helping yourself before you help others.

I truely want with everything that I have for the US to totally withdraw from the UN and other peacekeeping missions. Nothing makes me more disgusted than watching foreigners treat our soldiers like shit after they have put their lives on the lines to help their dead-beat assses.

[FHwku]

I was at the library, and I noticed the new courthouse. It's bigger and more beautiful than the museum and the library.

I also noticed that I can watch The Simpsons with 5.1 surround sound. I guess I want to feel like I'm really IN the cartoon.

I'm not worried about the collapse as-we-know-it. I'm sure
people have always thought that we were on the brink of uh-oh. Sometimes they get really excited about it and wear signs that say "The end is nigh!" and "Heck is for people who don't believe in Gosh!"

[moe.ron]

I don't know if the American civilization will collapse. However, the American hegemony has been declining since the Vietnam war. Sure we got the big guns and other stuff, but while we are concentrating on the "war on terrorism," another potential hegemon has been rising all so quickly and sooner or later it will be bigger and more powerfull then us in term of economic and military power. And I agree with Rudey, it will be China. Consider this, East Asia are now in the mist of integrating their economy. China and ASEAN has agree to establish a free trade zone in ten years. Japan and S. Korea are likely to join this free trade and from what I've herd form Australia, they are keen to join. However, Australia entrance has been blocked by Malaysia because of tit for tat squabble between John Howard and Dr. Mahatir. Mahatir is scheduled to "resign" after the next OIC meeting in, I believe, 2003. So who knows, Australia and New Zealand might be joining the EAEG and thus we will be an economic power that has the potential to be the biggest, richest, most powerfull bloc the world has ever seen. I would even argue it would be even bigger then the proposed AFTA. Why, consider this, it's internal market will be more then a billion people. And there are also signs that India are keen to join. This bloc will have almost half of the worlds population. Scary ain't it?

[Imthechamp]

America will never fall cuz if we keep having presidents like George W., there is no way we will fail!

[Kevin]

I think we have a very strong defense against China... Our culture. They have been Americanizing at a very quick pace. Also, Maoist Communism (which to some degree still controls thier thinking) abhors imperialism. It would be a direct violation of 50 years of propaganda for them to invade. Besides.. The Pacific is a pretty large body of water to have to cross.

I think the days of imperialism are gone. The US is still spreading its influence though.. But not at the point of a rifle... It's now with the dollar bill which is in the long run a much more influential item.

The only thing that can destroy America is America itself.

[XOMichelle]

Bush administration must understand the roots of terrorism


By Paul Ehrlich
Guest Columnist
Monday, November 18, 2002

Perhaps the greatest mistake of the Bush administration has been its utter failure to take any steps to reduce the factors that inspire terrorists to attack us.
One factor, of course, is rich-world attempts to control oil flows, as exemplified most recently by Bush’s apparent plans to take control of Iraq’s vast petroleum reserves. Oil also explains the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia, which enrages some Muslims, especially Osama bin Laden. But demographic and socioeconomic factors — especially poverty, inequality and large numbers of young men facing dim economic prospects — also are likely contributors to such terrorism.

The United States and its allies have responded to the heinous attacks of Sept. 11 with a short-term campaign focused on the necessary but insufficient task of bringing the perpetrators to justice. It did not respond by instituting a sane energy policy emphasizing conservation and renewable sources. That would have undoubtedly reduced the threat of terrorism, but it would also have menaced America’s love affair with gas-guzzling SUVs.

But oil geopolitics alone can’t explain the atrocity of the Sept. 11 attacks. Sadly, an integrated framework that explains the origins of terrorism in general, and terrorism against the West based in Islamic fundamentalism in particular, is still lacking. For instance, why Arab nations have not maintained the enormous cultural and economic lead they once enjoyed over the Christian West is poorly understood. It seems unlikely that cultural disappointment over these long-term trends would make Muslims more prone to terrorism than any other militarily impotent group. The persistence of non-democratic governments in Muslim nations certainly might help generate resentment against the West to the degree that Western intervention in aid of corrupt, autocratic rulers is perceived as a factor.

In the Nov. issue of Population and Environment, Jianguo “Jack” Liu of Michigan State University and I define Sept. 11-type terrorism as actions carried out by militarily weak sub- or trans-national groups from developing nations to gain political ends through violence against private citizens or public property of militarily powerful developed nations.

Certain persistent socioeconomic and demographic factors seem to help create this kind of terrorism and make it easier to recruit terrorists, but the Bush administration seems not to recognize these factors, and the press all too often ignores them. Widespread poverty is obviously one of the most important, especially because of the severely unequal distribution of wealth between and within nations. Others include a lack of gender equity; substandard public health, education and communication capabilities; and frequent exposure to violence.

In our report, Liu and I examined social indicators in a sample of developing countries that seem likely sources of terrorists, the majority of which contained substantial Muslim populations. On average, a substantial gap in all of those indicators was found between the poor countries and a sample of developed nations, with only a very few overlaps.

We concluded that, at the very least, these factors can be important to the motivations and recruitment of terrorists, even when those terrorists are relatively prosperous and well educated individuals as were the Sept. 11 Saudis and Osama bin Laden himself. The socioeconomic and political conditions in their nations provided a good basis for both moral indignation and grassroots support. And sadly, what projections can be made give little hope that this salient set of socioeconomic differences between the developing and developed nations in our sample will be substantially reduced in the near future.

For example, population growth projections indicate that the economies of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Egypt will need to grow by about 100 percent, 75 percent, 70 percent and 40 percent, respectively, in the next quarter century just to keep per capita purchasing power from falling. Furthermore, the very strictness of religious fundamentalism makes many people in these countries extremely resistant to change and promotes a willingness to die for beliefs.

The vast majority of terrorists are young adult males. This is hardly surprising; after all, most violent anti-social behavior is generated by young men, often unemployed or underemployed.

In the first half of this century, the proportion of young men in developing nations will continue to be substantially larger than in developed countries. Huge numbers of boys now under 15, many in Muslim nations acquiring a hatred for the United States, will soon enter their high-crime years; and the effects of this young population will persist. Job opportunities for the disproportionate numbers of young men in poor economies are relatively scarce now. But high population growth rates are expected to continue in many developing nations, and in the face of that growth, job opportunities may become much rarer. Many believe population growth itself now retards development, widening the rich-poor gap and increasing the distress to those left behind.

Why, then, have many countries (e.g., in Latin America) sharing some socioeconomic and demographic conditions with the countries in our sample not generated the same sort of terrorist threats against the rich countries as have originated in the Middle East?

One answer might be that the United States’ exceptional support of Israel coupled with its oil profligacy as a clear single-resource root of policies have served as triggers in the Middle East but not in other regions. The active suppression by national governments of guerrilla movements such as the Shining Path in Peru is probably significant as well.

I am convinced that the prudent course for the United States and other rich nations is to work to ameliorate social and economic rich-poor disparities while trying to unravel the complex root causes of terrorism. After all, we would reap many other benefits from improving conditions in developing nations even if the efforts did not significantly reduce terrorism.

The United States should play a central role in improving demographic and socioeconomic conditions in developing nations. It is one of the stingiest rich nations in terms of development assistance — ranking 15th by donating only one-tenth of 1 percent of its gross national product.

Without dramatic action, however, the demographic and socioeconomic conditions that prevail in much of the world will help provide a substrate on which 9/11-type terrorism can thrive into the foreseeable future. Exacerbating terrorist tendencies are policies of the developed nations designed to expand their consumption and maintain their access to natural resources in less developed regions — including waging war on anyone who we decide might impede the flow of oil into American SUVs and dollars into the pockets of George Bush’s friends.

The United States and other rich nations should then move as rapidly as possible toward an energy-efficient economy that works to minimize dependence on oil (and coal), while putting much more effort into limiting wasteful resource consumption and closing the rich-poor gap. In the process, the rich could create brand new markets for the outputs of the new economy and speed the reduction of their own population sizes to more satisfactory and sustainable levels while helping to protect the environment.

The United States also could increase its pathetic level of foreign aid and carefully target that aid on, for example, increasing employment and lowering fertility rates in developing countries. Aid to develop labor-intensive enterprises and to education, particularly of women, are two examples.

This effort will require innovation, care and tough diplomacy, and will not happen overnight. That is all the more reason for announcing our good intentions and changing our attitudes right now.

[Kevin]

I knew the above was nothing more than propaganda when it said that Bush et al were out to control Iraq's oil supply... Please give me a quote that said they wanted to invade and occupy Iraq for any extended period of time? And if they occupied it would they proceed to set up US oil companies with mineral rights?

Please.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by Coramoor
I'm in the Army and I always see the US contributing more and being the first ones into a danger zone whenever the UN is involved. Which I think it total BS.

I am an American soldier and I see no need to risk US lives for other countries-other than in protecting our own self-interests. Selfish? Yes, but nothing is wrong with helping yourself before you help others.

I truely want with everything that I have for the US to totally withdraw from the UN and other peacekeeping missions. Nothing makes me more disgusted than watching foreigners treat our soldiers like shit after they have put their lives on the lines to help their dead-beat assses.

Well I was in the Canadian Army and did a tour in the former Yoguslavia..... and let me tell you that the reason most American soldiers get treated like shit by "locals" is because of two things:

1) The American media.... incredibly biased, and US centric. No one likes to be told that the US is the greatest country in the world and their's is a piece of shit.
2) Attitudes like yours.... if the locals know that you don't want to be their to help them then they lose all respect for you; if they know you volunteered to risk your life for their future it changes their attitude (a bit of a generalization).

I have noticed that most of the antagonizism towards the US is frankly because of the cocky attitude that is presented abroad.

[Kevin]

Most American soldiers are reservists who are taken from their lives and sent to some far corner of the globe because people want to kill eachother because of their ethnic background.

Funny thing is this happens in our own cities in the US.

If I were a soldier in a situation like that it's because I'm there to do a job. I wouldn't imagine that soldiers in WWII at the end of the war fealt like all their sacrifice had done much.. Except return the world to the status quo... minus millions of lives because of one crazy man and a country that got behind him.

Why would people *expect* a soldier from ANY foriegn country to be there for any other reason than because they have to be?

They should be looking towards the Red Cross/Peace Corps type folks if they want that.

[justamom]

Terrific comments! I'm enjoying reading and learning as well. Many things I did not realize.

I must say I strongly agree with a few of Coramoor's points. I'm in the Army and I always see the US contributing more and being the first ones into a danger zone whenever the UN is involved. Which I think it total BS.

I also agree we need to put our OWN house in order before
we rescue victims of religious/cultural wars which have spanned the ages.I am an American soldier and I see no need to risk US lives for other countries-other than in protecting our own self-interests. Selfish? Yes, but nothing is wrong with helping yourself before you help others.

I believe we need to keep our eye on China and we should let the Middle East duke it out. We have alienated so many people, so many countries. Everyone looks to the US to jump in and "save" them, feed them, educate them. Remember the Ford Explorer tire fiasco? Good grief, we didn't even have a factory in this country that could produce the tires we needed. "American Made" are words that just about belong in the archives. Lot's of little laws around imports/exports that I know even less about except for the bottom line-it's hurting our economy. (I was on a roll-I just deleted about 2 paragraphs! LOL) SO IN CONCLUSION -"God helps he who helps himself!" AMERICA FIRST!-Where's my flag?