Valois; I don't think America does only wrong, it is well known for promoting trade, offering aid, etc.

And every country acts in it's perceived self-interests, including militarily. I think the fact that America is so powerful militarily is what causes much of the foreign hatred to America. But, I am realistic enough to recognize Real-Politik. As a COUNTRY, you have to do what you have to do.

Where I take umbrage is with the CULTURE of self-deceit and self-aggrandizing Americans engage in, in regards to that foreign policy.

If you want to overthrow a democratic country, or support a dictatorship, or support terrorists, fine. But recognize what you are doing and WHY. Americans engaging in self-deception allows vile acts in their names for 'freedom' and 'democracy' that totally undermine the very meanings of those terms, and doesn't behoove the country Americans believe it to be.

No, no North American Union. The United States should not pursue such a union.

I really like valoishapsburg's response to Invictus, but I would take it a step further. We didn't 'rebuild,' give 'aid' to, or 'invest' in all these places we destroyed out of altruism. We deliberately crushed thier method of life and culture, and put a new one (American/Western/Ours) in place. This is exactly colonialism.

Elites, in my opinion, have graduated to the understanding that you no longer have to dominate a country physically in order to control it, extract from it, and take advantage of it. The way the England (including the Hudson's Bay Company, the world's first multi-national) extended a network of colonies (by constant and sustained violence) is now obsolete.

The American network of colonies is far more vast and amazing than anything England, France, Greece, or any other empire has yet accomplished. We now have more places on earth engaging in a western capitalist lyfestyle than any previous empire has been able to accomplish. This lyfestyle and way of life benefits one group of elites, thus is one empire. This is the whole McDonald's theory of geopolitics. We (the US that is, sorry for being so North-American centric) will never bomb another country who has a McDonald's. This is for no other reason than... We Don't Have To. They are already being controlled culturally, economically, politically, and militarily by our Empire.

I'm just asking if this empire is still on the rise, or if it is in decline...

Im with schlort and wellington on this one. We may be big jerks, but we have been rather decent big jerks.

not all of these will fit the criteria of:
being sucked in (we got into Iraq ourselves)
winning (Not so much with Vietnam)
pulling out (Korea we mostly have, Iraq we are still working on.

but all do fit at least two of those, and all satisfy the giving the losers money part. The first two examples satisfy all criteria

We nuked Japan, then we rewrote their constitution and helped them rebuild their country into an economic powerhouse.

We did the same thing in europe. We helped stopped the only regime that is pretty much universally considered evil, then initiated the marshall plan rebuilding europe with the help of tons of american resources.

Then we protected South Korea from North Korean and Chinese forces. South Korea is now one of the world's economic and technological powerhouses.

We stepped in to help France fight a losing war against communist revolutionaries in Vietnam. Now, even though Vietnam is a Communist government, we have pretty good relations with vietnam and our tourism is a key part of their economy.

The first Gulf War was probably one of the quickest and most successful military actions in history. It reinforced the UN's power and helped to show that International Treaties have some bite (Iraq had repeatedly violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by failing to report all nuclear development to the IAEA as required by the treaty). We then helped Iraq rebuild its infrastructure.

The war in former yugoslavia (which no one ever seems to bring up or even remember) was an action against one of the most brutal genocides in history. We, along with a few other NATO members, attacked Serbia and stopped the genocide and removed Milosevic from power. We then, and i believe still, sent aid to all the areas effected (the ethnic serbians were committing genocide against the ethnic albanians, but they were spread between multiple countries so multiple were involved).

The most recent Iraq War was a 'good' war presented very poorly to public and justified in no reasonable way. There were good reasons to go into Iraq, we just asserted the wrong ones. Since the first gulf war, Iraq had continued to disobey UN resolutions, 17 if memory serves. Hussein was flaunting the UN as an impotent organization. The US, had it stated this and suggested that we need to enforce the resolutions that have been issued by the UN, would have had the full support of the world. Instead, we were stupid and didn't talk about this. We suggested they were terrorists and had WMDs. (on the WMD thing: its true they never had WMDs, but Hussein had told everyone, including his own republican guard, that they did. Everyone, including his army, was surprised when they found out it was a lie. Hussein, it turns out, was a good liar). Since we invaded, we have been rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure and training their people and government spending billions every month.

If the North American Union were pursued the right way, the Manifest Destiny way...

A joke! It's an awful idea and would mean the end of America. Although it looks like these supranational unions can't really be stopped. Except by Ireland. Unfortunately the Westphalian state might not survive to the end of the century. Or everything will be fine. That's always a possibility.

I agree with Zarathustra. He did a much better job explaining what I wanted to say.

Nice discussion in this thread, a pleasure to read, although articulating all the points of view and confuting the others would require far more space than available. So, here my 2 ¢...

To answer the original question about the "declining Empire", I believe the right answer is "yes": the USA empire is in irreversible decline. The world's clock - LUCKILY - will not rewind its clock, and those countries who are on the way of their independence (EU included) will not get back to be the king's subjects. The main reason for the decline? Like for ancient Rome, an empire whose existence relies on never-ending growth is not sustainable.

I believe that the end of this domination built on military, political, media and economic violence, will however leave the space to something better, and that USA will not end their days in misery and despair, but in a prosperous and peaceful way.

Senator Obama said it really clear in one of the debates against Senator Clinton. He said something which sense was USA becoming "leaders" instead of "rulers". He spoke - for example - of the possibility to meet leaders of countries considered "bad ones" by USA public opinion. Cuba, Iran, Venezuela... he said something like "USA has to stop thinking that speaking with its president is a privilege. The USA president is a leader of a country within many others". To me it does not require rocket science to prove that talking to people you disagree from is the only way to influence their choices. (If this was not the case, a game like Diplomacy would not have any sense, BTW).

The biggest obstacle to this "USA republic" is however its people. Citizens of USA seem to have - in general - a very naïve and superficial understanding of the planet they live on... Most dangerously they totally lack the capacity of seeing "the largest perspective", to understand that on this planet we are a single, interconnected system.

The "war on terrorism" is probably the most evident of this lack of understanding, but the lack of action on climate change is probably the most dramatic.

So, down with the empire and long live the republic. But the republic, as any republic, needs informed citizens in order to be strong and prosperous. As long as the average US citizen will remain so deeply ignorant about the facts of this world, USA will keep on experiencing a steep decline in quality of life, material wealth, security, hope and happiness.

I believe - though - that USA has an excellent record when it comes to people's action and quick change (one example for all: the civil rights movements in the 50's and 60's). US citizens seem to truly feel "special" towards their country and to be ready to sacrifice some of their personal life in the name of the country... If this is the case, I am positive that under the leadership of a smart person, USA will be able to raise from the hole it dug for itself and shine again.

Which ever Empire is in power you can always expect a mix a good and bad, that is, good for some, and bad for some. Had America not been the dominant empire since World War 2 another country would have played that role. Which country would you have like it to have been?

Spyman... the very same idea of thinking that an empire will always be there is fallacious. There are other forms of global governance. USA - btw - has been dominant only since 1989, and before that - to my knowledge - to find a single "dominant empire" you have to get back to the Romans...

Not true. At any time in history there have always been a multitude of "empires" who are dominant in at least part of the world.
In recent history we have had the US empire, the Soviet Empire, the Chinese Empire to name a few. In the 19th century we had the British Empire, the Ottoman Empire etc.

Mac! I like your post, and I can only hope it goes that well.... I'm not certain it will.

However, speaking as an American, it is important to note that Americans were not simply born more stupid. We didn't choose to be more ignorant. Any empire (and to a large extent any governing body) will seek to dumb down it(')s subjects, set erroneous frames for them, and control thier information. This all serves to control them, and it works quite well. For a simple primer on this subject read '1984' or 'Manufacturing Consent' or any other number of books on the topic. A abusive regime and an ignorant public is a mutually beneficial arrangement and they certainly seek to institute eachother. I still think that framing America as fundamentally different or separate from Europe (or any other westernized capitalist nation state) is a grave mistake. America is simply the festering head and most prominent example of this power structure. I really had hoped to get commentary on the entire western empire, but I suppose the thread will go where it may...

Just to clarify, I probably should not have referred to the US as "*the* dominant empire since World War 2". Perhaps I should have said the most influential empire. Obviously there have been other empires.

I'm puzzled by the apparent lack of regard for the resurgent Chinese in this thread. Influence is not absolute, it is relative, and the EU shows no sign of the dynamism recently shown by the Chinese.

Spyman... your last post clarify the issue: I was exactly pointing out the difference between being the DOMINANT empire and being ONE OF the powerful empires of a given time...

For all the worries about China and Russia growing in power the fact is the US military is completely unsurpassed at present, it's absolutely head and shoulders above any other military power

I think it's very hard to predict whether that lead will be maintained throughout this century

the history teaches us that all great empires have collapsed quickly at the height of their power. the rest of the world hopes this will happen to the usa, that's all. i admit it didn't happen yet

@Whalen.

I am happy you like my post. I never understated that US citizens are born more stupid, of course... coming from Italy (where the richest guy in the country, who controls virtually all the national TV's and newspapers is also the prime minister and does a law to save himself from court trials every second day) I think I can totally understand what you refer to when you speak about "manufacturing consent" (the above mentioned guy has currently 62% consent. The Financial Times defined this as "north-Korean").

I am of the opinion that only totalitarian regimes benefits from dumbing down their people. True democracies (this has little to do with voting, and more about being informed citizens) benefit a lot from a developed civil society, as this means to share the responsibility of social order with everybody, instead of having to enforce it upon people.

This is why - if I had to say what #1 issue is for countries like yours or mine - I would say "education".

Anyhow: I do not only think USA people has not born "dumb". I also think they are amongst the fastest nations on the planet when it comes to find new solutions, research the unknown and embrace change. Much more - for example - than the average European country, where thousands of years of local history and traditions can be at times an immoveable anchor.

So... I really do hope, for the good of USA people and for the peace of the rest of the world, that you are just about to enter a long, happy and prosperous period of change.

Best luck!

"Team America-World Police!!! Everybody get down on the ground!!!"

> the rest of the world hopes this will happen to the usa
you don't speak for Australia alamothe, fwiw

By the way to be an "empire" don't you have to have colonies? I'm not sure what the definition is, but I think historical empires will perhaps collapse faster than the American "empire" because they lose their colonies the moment they wane slightly

you mean like afghanistan or iraq? :-)

Sent from: Zarathustra (1422 ) Sent: 09:55 PM
Im with schlort and wellington on this one. We may be big jerks, but we have been rather decent big jerks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed ye have.

I've just finished reading
Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic
part of Chalmers Johnson Blowback series.
next up
The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism by andrew Bacevich
http://www.americanempireproject.com/bookpage.asp?ISBN=0805088156

Charmers made an interesting historical point. At the time of its height the roman empire had 35-40 large military bases spread out over its Empire. Right now the US has about he same.
. They maintain very large military bases in Korea,Okinawa(japan) Australia, Iraq,UAE,Afghanistan,Germany, the UK etc.
Most countries are not "colonies" of the US in a 19th century hard power model but Economically and Politically they are ties to the US system.
Buck the IMF,world Bank, WTO, TRIPs system economically and reject the US to base/transit troops/ships/planes, that way leads to Cuba,Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

Is that you Mugabe? Do you really think the US is responsible for the current economic turmoil in Zimbabwe?

> you mean like afghanistan or iraq? :-)
Not really, no :-P I mean more like Palestine under Roman occupation, with taxation going directly to support Rome, or India under British rule. Giving some nice contracts to companies which are friendly with the people in power, while spending masses of taxpayer money on security, hardly sounds like a beneficial colony

oh no i didn't mean that the US was responsible for all the economic chaos that has hit Zimbabwe as such. one can safely put 90% of that at Mugabe's door. I was saying that if one rejects the Washington consensus economic neo liberalism policies of the US run global system and one doesn't have bucket loads of oil then one is in danger of starting a spiral of conflict and reaction that has lead to such a state of affairs. It was Mugabe decisions that lead to this.If he had played ball then Zimbabwe would be a regular in debt up to their eyeballs African nation rather than a complete basket case. Aristide in Haiti didn't want to play ball and he was dumped. Hugo is only still around because of his oil.

Whalen will you marry me

Well... So far as I can tell it's illegal in most states... ;o) Good thing it's legal to drop bombs and torture, but not for same sex people to get married! We got our priorities....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the money America so gratuitously "gave" to the victims of it's wars was actually in the form of loans with interest and investments... Not exactly altruistic, only expanding the web of American power.

Also, the American Empire isn't so much in decline as it is being surpassed by the growing Chinese Empire. But I suppose you could call that decline.