How long will it take to repair the damge to America done by the Bush regime

[PLATO]

Originally posted by el freako
I think that america's fall from 'hyperpower' status will be exacerbated by the fact that it's spending too much on it's military - the US accounts for around 30% of global GDP (estimated using exchange rates) but 45% of world defence spending.

This means that other countries have more resources to devote to investing in their economy and that any future arms race between the major powers will hit the US hardest.
For example, if China and India grow as expected over the next 20 years (China going from 53% of the US to 74%, India from 25% to 40%) then even if they limit their defence spending to the same share of GDP as it is now the US is going to have to raise their spending from the current 4.3% to 6.2% just to keep the ratio between it's spending and theirs the same.

The ratio is not as important as you think. Hard dollar numbers and time will keep the gap widening for some time.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Afghanistan? Pakistan already is the 1st "Islamic" nuclear power. Iran will probably be next. I just can't see Afghanistan in the "club" under any circumstances.

Sorry, I miswritten this (I'm exhausted, it's 05:41 here ). I meant Pakistan of course. Pakistan is sure a "Islamic Republic", but its military and administration hasn't fallen to the fundamentalists AFAIK. Should Musharraf fall because of the impossiblity to foster both domestic and American support, Muslim fundamentalists may well get into power - and get their hands on nukes.

[Drake Tungsten]

In general, I think countries who vocally support the US either need them for protection (Japan, South Korea) or try to snatch some power by being buddy-buddy with the hyperpower.

Japan doesn't need US protection and it is not clear that South Korea does either. Your case on the UK and Australia was weak as well. Your best case was with Spain, but I think you underestimate the natural affinity between the conservative Spanish government and the Bush administration. They were cooperating on issues long before Iraq became an issue again, so I doubt you can ascribe Spanish actions to the power struggle in the EU...

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

In general, I think countries who vocally support the US either need them for protection (Japan, South Korea) or try to snatch some power by being buddy-buddy with the hyperpower. They all have their interests. And I remain sure your "friends" will disappoint you as soon as their interests will be diverging.
After all, some Americans call France an "enemy" because our interests don't coincide with yours on the Iraq issue. Interesting view of what an ally is, don't you think ?

Would not the same be true of countries on the other side of the issue?

Is this not the fundamental failure of the UN? Countries will always look out for their own national interests first as opposed to their friends?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Sorry, I miswritten this (I'm exhausted, it's 05:41 here ). I meant Pakistan of course. Pakistan is sure a "Islamic Republic", but its military and administration hasn't fallen to the fundamentalists AFAIK. Should Musharraf fall because of the impossiblity to foster both domestic and American support, Muslim fundamentalists may well get into power - and get their hands on nukes.

This is a scary thought. It is entirely possible that India would take unilateral action to prevent this.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Would not the same be true of countries on the other side of the issue?

Is this not the fundamental failure of the UN? Countries will always look out for their own national interests first as opposed to their friends?

Even though I'm pro-peace, I acknowledge most countries on this issue have ugly motivations. Bush's emotional appeals to 'liberate Iraq from its evil dictator' only match the hypocrisy of Chirac's emotional appeals of 'avoiding the useless death of women, men, children and elderly'.
Some undecided UNSC members will vote only according to whom gives them most $$$, which is a poor excuse of a foreign policy.
Sure, I think only the Bush admin had ugly reasons to go to war at the beginning of the crisis, so many months ago (simply because they ahd time beforehand to think about it). But it appears to me every country has now taken the stance it believed to bring the most interests or prestige to them or their leaders. Their love towards the US or their care for the Iraqi people do not weight any bit in their decision now, but I admit I'm a pessimist.

As you say it, this is the fundamental failure of the UN. It has plagued the UN from the beginning, as it has always been instrumentalized by the powerful countries, when it comes to security matters.
The UN remains the most solid institution when it comes to international human rights, reconstruction, democratization and such, but it sucks at avoiding the war. I don't remember any war waged by a superpower being rejected by the UN, and I don't remember any UN-led war which went against the interests of a superpower.
Maybe this crisis will make the UN change, and being more efficient on security matters. But this hope is raised everytime the UNSC messes up, which is nearly everytime it decides something

[Zylka]

Sorry to threadjack, just an off question. As has been stated, the US accounts for about 30% of the world's GDP, what was it before the Bush regime? What is it estimated to be in the next while?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
The "Patriot Act"

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011025_hr3162_usa_patriot_bill.html

Just realized that doesn't work. Try this one:

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/hr2975terrorismbill.pdf

Well, I can't get that one to work eithier.

The links should work if you copy them

[Spiffor]

The link worked if you copy/paste it in the adress bar, but thanks anyways
I'll read it tomorrow. I know really have to sleep
Good night !

[Shi Huangdi]

"I think that america's fall from 'hyperpower' status will be exacerbated by the fact that it's spending too much on it's military - the US accounts for around 30% of global GDP (estimated using exchange rates) but 45% of world defence spending."

Actually, the US does not spend that much as a percentage of its GDP on the military, i think it is still under 5%. Also keep in mind a good amount of that spending goes to research and development, which will maintian a US technological edge.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Their love towards the US or their care for the Iraqi people do not weight any bit in their decision now, but I admit I'm a pessimist.




Maybe this crisis will make the UN change, and being more efficient on security matters. But this hope is raised everytime the UNSC messes up, which is nearly everytime it decides something

Spiffor, this is not pessimism. These are the reasons that countries got together to form the UN in the first place. They recognize their failings...they just can't overcome them.

I think that it is doubtful that the UNSC will change in the forseeable future. As you said, the 5 permanent members (or superpowers) have been able to do what they have wanted to in the past. They have no desire to change the status quo.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The link worked if you copy/paste it in the adress bar, but thanks anyways
I'll read it tomorrow. I know really have to sleep
Good night !

Nite Spiffor

[el freako]

Posted by Zykla:
"Sorry to threadjack, just an off question. As has been stated, the US accounts for about 30% of the world's GDP, what was it before the Bush regime? What is it estimated to be in the next while?"


Well that figure was using exchange rates (which I felt was more appropriate relative to millitary spending which I compared it with)

Here are estimates of the US's share of Global GDP when converted using PPPs to the nearest 0.25% of world GDP:

1920: 25.75%
1930: 26.25%
1940: 24.25%
1950: 30.75%
1960: 26.50%
1970: 24.00%
1980: 22.75%
1990: 21.75%
2000: 21.50%
2010: 20.50%
2020: 19.75%

The 1990-2000 figure is flattered by the large fall in GDP (around 30% to 40%) in the former USSR (10% of world output in 1990, but only 4% in 2000).

In my forecasts I am correcting China's overstated growth rate using PPP data.

[el freako]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Actually, the US does not spend that much as a percentage of its GDP on the military, i think it is still under 5%. Also keep in mind a good amount of that spending goes to research and development, which will maintian a US technological edge.

If you will actually deign to read the post I clearly state that the current level is 4.3% - the 6.2% is what it will have to rise to to ensure equivalent US military dominance in 2020 over China and India.

[PLATO]

Interesting. I would like to look at this data myself. Where did it come from?