Whalen, I like "you no longer have to dominate a country physically in order to control it, extract from it, and take advantage of it."
Incidentally, the Romans were doing exactly that over 2000 years ago. They'd get their hooks in economically long before any military presence. Often they were invited in to resolve a local dispute.
But back to the present ... I think that really works both ways. As better communications technology effectively makes the world a smaller place, the exchange of culture works both ways. The US is a melting pot, it has always been absorbing not only people but their cultures and ideologies. On the other hand, much of China's relatively recent boom has been due to capitalism. Mao must be spinning in his grave, but look what its done to the standard of living for hundreds of millions.
Anyway, there may be McDonalds all over the world, but if you look inside, you'll find Japanese point of sale systems and ovens made primarily from Chinese parts. Whether people like it or not, the world is a very interconnected place.

By the way, thanks to everyone in this thread. While early on there were a few knee-jerk rants, people have really done a great job with their thoughtful posts. Its a real pleasure to read.

I thought you folks were against torture ... if that were the case we should ban marriage for everyone, hehe.

"Mao must be spinning in his grave, but look what its done to the standard of living for hundreds of millions."

What has it done? As far as I can tell, the standard of living in China has raised far slower than it's economic growth would suggest. It's clear its government is purposefully limiting the increase in standard of living to divert more funds to reinvestment in economic growth. Perhaps it will raise the standard of living higher in the long run, but it has a tendency of continued reinvestment in economic growth rather than real increase in standard of living. We're still all waiting for the promised catch up, when all we get is the trickle down.

It's no question that America has been selfishly altering the world for more Pro-American governments and economic climates but the real question is, "Is this a bad thing"?

It beats communism. 100 million people haven't died because of American ideals.

I agree that the Chinese standard of living has been increasing slower than the economic growth. However, it has been increasing faster than it was with the old system. Reinvestment is an issue of long-term vs short-term. The Chinese have traditionally been long-term thinkers.

I don't think there's really any question whether old-style-communism or new pseudo-but-not-really-communism-actually-capitalism has worked better for raising standard of living in China.

Communism has its benefits, but in a massive centralized country without representation, very few of those are evident. Zero employment isn't very comforting when there is no food to buy with your money.

It's funny that people call China's economic system capitalism disguised as communism... it's still very much socialist, though it's shifting on the spectrum. It's still far from capitalism. It's just becoming a more mixed economy like the vast majority of the world economies. But then, I don't even call the American economic system capitalist, I consider it to be mixed disguised as capitalism.

@ invictus
"It beats communism. 100 million people haven't died because of American ideals." That is wrong. I can't actually remember the actual figures, but have a look to this documentary that I saw when I was living in Australia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_on_Democracy. In that there is a count of the amount of people whose death is actually directly linked to USA military actions or foreign military actions backed up by USA government. I honestly do not remember if the count was passing the 100 millions, but it was certainly close to it.

About China: guys, I know that "socialism" or "communism" are kind of highly biased terms for US people (hence in US-English) and therefore are used in a very approximative manner, yet they refer to precise theories and vision of the society, so there is no doubt that China is not a socialist country. I quote from wikipedia: "Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating social or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society where labor is the main source of wealth.". Now look at China: the means of productions are not in the hands of collectivity nor administrated by the collectivity, but mainly of private investors or lobbies of powerful people who exercise their power through "the party". A few years ago, the possibility to invest in China was open to foreign capital as well. China is probably the furthest ever from pursuing an egalitarian society: the "new riches" are getting more and more rich, while the progressive abandon of countryside by farmers is creating a huge mass of people whit no asset other than their own working capacity.

Now, I would not say that China is "capitalist" in the way the average US person would conceive this term. Yet, let's have a look to wikipedia: "Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are owned by private persons, and operated for profit and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market, rather than by central economic planning". Now, this scenario applies far closer to China that the one described in the definition of socialism.

Some might object that China is not properly a "free market", yet: 1) my point is to underline how China is MORE capitalist than socialist, I am not saying China is the perfect incarnation of a capitalist society 2) USA and EU market are not free either: both of them heavily subsidise certain economical activities. For EU, the most blatant case is agriculture.

Besides, it is difficult to claim anything about the standard of living of Chinese people, as the control of the government on information is so strict, that even basic information such level of literacy or epidemics are - at best - guesses. Sure, if you split the GDP by the population, you will see an increase in the average, but the GDP says about quality of life about the same D-points say about a player's skill (sorry... could not resist!;)

Back on the topic, however: while I agree on the fact China is a rising power, I think it is unfair to compare it with USA or even EU. China is strong in economy, but its colonialist expansion has just started in Africa and a few other places, and has to do more with economic ties than with political/military links. Also, military- and diplomacy-wise, China is still very weak.

Wonderful thread, anyhow... it was a long time I could not find a so rich forum in terms of ideas, points of view and intellectual capacity. Thank you everybody. :)

We only give out foreign aid on the condition that they will pay it back with a lot of interest. That's not really very nice, especially when countries that have been shredded by wars are desperate for it...

In some ways I think the American Empire (and I use the term empire quite loosely) will certainly decline in relative power. (though I suppose if you do talk about it as a western empire rather than that of the US, then it may actually increase in influence, but I digress). As the EU continues to increase it's influence and managed to work together more and more as a unit, and as China continues to expand and flex it's muscles (I agree it's not quite in the same league as the EU or the US, but it's getting there, and I have little doubt that within my lifetime it'll be a lot more powerful/influential), the relative power of the US will decline.
However, I dont' think that means that the US will necessarily prosper less, or even lose influence in absolute terms. If everyone plays their cards right (and I think in the long run, despite the last adminitration, the US and everyone else will), there's no real reason that everyone (and by that I mean the world as a whole) won't actually end up more prosperous than they are now. There will be three major poles of power, the US will simply have to figure out how to operate in the world as one of three major powers, rather than as the sole super-power (or as one of two, in direct opposition to one another as we saw until about '89).
I'm honestly pretty optimistic about this new multi-polar world, if for no other reason than I think we're in the unique position of having a number of up and coming major powers all of whom have their economies and to a slightly lesser (but increasing) degree cultural institutions pretty closely connected, so while there may be some rivalry between these powers, I don't think they'll be openly hostile or likely to start real wars with one another, they'd all have too much to lose!

Anyway, great thread everyone, as others have said, despite some early knee-jerk reactions (on many sides) by a few people, it has mostly been a very thoughtful and well written thread. Let's keep up the intelligent civil discourse! It's refreshing!

How is China weak diplomacy-wise? What does that even mean? China is definitely one of the political power players. It's got it's UN Security Council Seat and the veto power associated, and it's got extensive political and economic ties.

As for it's military, sure it doesn't compare to the US or even the EU, but for a single nation it still packs a hefty punch. It may be behind in military technology and naval power, but you'd be hard pressed to find a significantly more formidable land force...

Though in the end, it's real power is it's massive economic growth, far outstripping the US and the EU. It's only a matter of time.

Nah. The EU's technology is too advanced for that. And they have far more power economically.

100 million people haven't died because of American ideals.

wrong

China often chooses to stay out of other world events. Even if they have the power to exert a lot of influence over other nations they often choose not to. I guess this could be interpretted as "diplomatically weak".

Directly to the point of the thread though, I myself would define 'The American Empire' as its dominating influence over much of the world through its economic and military power. In that sense I believe it could - as the general consensus within the thread seems to believes - decline.

Personally, I don't neccesarily believe that is a bad thing. If it allows International systems to become more democratic and makes America respect international laws to greater degrees it'd be better on the whole.

The US is still 300,000,000 people of the free world and will remain an essential and powerful political force regardless of its decline as an 'empire'. It would just need support from more countries than the just the UK to instigate large-scale military operations.

Maybe its wishful thinking but I believe that without its wholly dominating influence the US will become part of the 'team' rather than its ruler. IMO better for a stable world.

Maybe I should have said "100 million people haven't been KILLED because of American ideals." I suppose adding casualties from every war America has fought in on all sides might add up to be something like 100 million. But the fact remains that America has had no Great Leap Forward, no Cultural Revolution, no Holodomor, no Holocaust, no purges, no pogroms, nothing of the like.

How many Native Americans were killed?

America has had no Great Leap Forward, no Cultural Revolution, no Holodomor, no Holocaust, no purges, no pogroms, nothing of the like.

are you kidding

you know theres these great things called books. they're filled with little lines and squiggles that when put together, mean something. and they can teach you all kinds of great things, like philosophy and anthropology and history, and they can make you appear much less ignorant when you try to make a point

unless of course, you're 'only joking'

there have been ethnic and socio=economic cleansing since this country began, all the way up to the present, i.e. it's going n right now
there have been numerous cultural revolutions, some for the worse but they happened nontheless, the civil right movement, the 1960's counter-culture, the GI movement during he vietnam war, and thats just off the top of my head. I'm sure someone who is more knowledgeable than me on the subject of american history would be glad to further enlighten you.

Comparing the relatively minor disturbances this country has had with disasters like the Great Leap Forward, Soviet purges, and the Holocaust trivializes the magnitude of these real tragedies. Nothing like any of these things has ever happened in America and saying that they have is just silly.

It also sounds like you don't know what the Cultural Revolution was, Sicarius. Perhaps you ought to open a book.

"relatively minor"? just because the government isn't paying for the extermination of a race, it isn't happening?

Relatively minor as in it didn't cause tens of millions of people to die.

how could this be land of the free home of the brave?
indigenous holocaust and the home of the slaves!

dude. are you seriously kidding me. are you really saying this country has never seen genocide???
this country has seen the worst genocide ever committed!!!
the holocaust and rwanda and darfur aint got shit on what happened to american natives.

you better check your history books author

if it says 'rupert murdoch' I'll understand where your coming from

Actually, the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust were worse. But apart from that, every genocide except the murder of African-Americans is horribly exaggerated.

Oh, and since when is 12 million lower than 10 million?

I only mention numbers, I don't get into any of this pointless "this genocide was more evil and horrible" talk, because they all are.

Invictus, maybe Sicarius has been a bit aggressive in his style, but he is right in the meaning... you should investigate further on the history of what I understand is your country.

The documentary I mentioned in a previous reply - BTW - is about the sole period of time since the WWII, and it refers to those staged revolutions organised and put together by the CIA (like in Chile, Honduras, Panama, etc...) and other conflicts. [BTW, before anybody can say "conspiracy theory": when I say "staged" I mean that the documents from CIA proving that are now publicly accessible].

The extermination of native Americans and what the slave market did to Africa are probably the most obvious tragedies to point out (in the order of the 100 million alone), but what has been done to South America is simply equally tragic and about equal in terms of life loss.

If an American patriot really wants to know what's wrong with America, they should talk to an equally nationalist Chinese person. You'll find you both think that the other's country is wrong and corrupt and causes death and destruction... When you can turn the lens with which you view this Chinese person on yourself, you'll understand that the truth is likely somewhere between the two interpretations, and not with either of the propaganda-induced nationalist sentiment.

Sicarius you have nothing but ad-hominem arguments that don't address perfectly valid points. Your debate tactics make you no better than the neo-cons like Murdoch who you claim to abhor. You are both enemies of free public discourse and neither of you should be taken seriously.

Murdoch shouldn't be taken seriously?

Chris... I like your last post, however, I would like to take issue with the idea that "the truth is somewhere 'between' the two interpretations." Although I fully agree that nationalism is a cloud on the human condition, I don't think that these nations must be somewhere between good and bad. Is it possible that both the US AND China have committed horrible attrocities and genocides? Is it possibly true that they both seek to control and subjegate 'thier' civilians? It seems to me that the US calling China a human rights violator (and vice versa) is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black... But the point is they are both wrong! They both commit vast amounts of oppression and evil. This seems (to me anyway) to be the basic nature of empire.

To clarify, this is not an attack on your position, just a development...