It's the balance of powers theory and nothing else

[kolpo]

What says the balance of powers theory: "if one country becomes too big will all other countries unite agaisnts that country"

This is more then just a theory, a lot of what happened in history can be explained by this theory, if one nation becomes too big will most other fear it could harm them or there interrests and that is exactly what causes the effect of the balance of powers. You can find in history tons of examples of this theory: the USSR becomes too big:most unite against it, napolion his empire becomes too big: most unite against it.

After the fall of the USSR was the balance of power lost, but because of the friendly multilateralistic policies of Bush senior and Clinton didn't the world really realized this. The combination of Bush senior and 9/11 changed this all.

We are now in the very beginning of the working of the balance of power. Everywhere on earth except in Israel and the US is anti-americanism on the raise.

At the same time as the relations with the US are becoming worser with the day are the other nations growing closely closer towards each other. The Arab world loves the France-German stance, Russia loves it, China quitely supports it, all have a united vision.

South Korea wants to improve the relations with the north at the same time when it's relations with the US are dropping.

The Arab world and europe there ideas about the Israelian conflict are growing closer with every passing day.

At the same time as the anti American sentiment in the Islamic world is raising, is also the solidary within the Islamic world raising, for many arabs is Saddam no longer a dangerours despot but instead a muslim brother.

Even the traditional allies like England and Turkey are facing a growing opposition towards US policies.

Off course can't we yet speak of truelly uniting againsts one country, but that is because we are still in the very beginning of the effect of the balance of powers. But with every new war, with every new US defense increase, with every new signal that indicates the power of the US, with every new unilateral move will we move closer and closer towards the effect of the balance of powers: quite everyone unites againsts the unbalancing big nation. This uniting doesn't have to be military there are also other ways this can happen.

[Ted Striker]

If this is going to happen why does your signature say the future can't be predicted?

[Paul Hanson]

You seem to be implying that it should happen, and I can't figure out why it should happen.

[Ted Striker]

Now Paul Hanson has one of the best signatures I've seen so far.

[Lancer]

I CLAIM THIS THREAD IN THE NAME OF BLIX!

So, the poll is dead, my beautiful thread closed, but I have permittion to discuss the matter in another thred. I choose this one.

We'll do a poll another way.

The question is, is Blix a sucker?
Options:
Yes, he's a bad sucker!
No, he's NOT a sucker
Blix is a banana

I vote yes! The fella was born yesterday.

[DanS]

Kolpo: We're likely to have more allies this time around than last time around. We lost Syria, Germany, and France, but gained a lot of Central European countries.

Trying to create a counterweight to the US is a dumb idea, especially if it proves not to work.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by DanS

Trying to create a counterweight to the US is a dumb idea, especially if it proves not to work.

Because the USA economy is the locomotive of the world economy. That's not bragging that's just the way it is.

[Lancer]

I guess at this point I'm willing to share this thread.

Or maybe I'll claim another?!?

Won't someone vote in my poll?

[Ned]

kolpo, I think the French are trying to form an anti-us coalition, as you suggest. The problem is that the bulk of Europe remains solidly pro-US. The French power play may only cause a restructuring of NATO without them. This may make further progress toward a united EU end.

Clearly the Arab world is also split between pro-US and anti-US factions. I presume a US victory in Iraq may cause some reevalutation by fence sitters.

China, Russia. Old enemies that have never really become friends. Russian anti-Americanism will cost them big time as they need US support financially.

Africa? We are going to deal with these folks bilaterally in the future. Whether they cooperate with the US or not will largely determine the level of aid. I think they understand this. Anti-Americanism has a price.

Mexico will also suffer from its recent antics.

What is happening is that the world is in fact divided. I wish it were not so, but it is.

[Ned]

Blix either is stupid or he is intentionally trying to not disarm Saddam. I don't think he is stupid.

[Kropotkin]

Parts of your argument is hard to follow but I woun't kling to that. However, the US will get "the world" against it if their interests run against the interests of "the world" and/or if the US acts in a unilateral way. There's nothing in the self interest of other nations to agree with the US as it is acting nowadays (unless it would mean survival, the ultimate rasion d'etat). If the US plays it one way the rest of the world will play along. If US acts unilaterly, the rest of the globe will go against it.

[Lancer]

Ned, I wonder if Blix has got a Swiss bank account. Really...he almost never went where US intel told him to ge, and when they did go the Iraqis knew he was coming, as in Powell's evidence. When Saddam calls, Blix goes...he call the distruction of a few missiles, "real progress" even though it's an obvious stall.

Something is up with Blix.

[DanS]

There's nothing in the self interest of other nations to agree with the US as it is acting nowadays

4 out of the G-7 countries are explicitly supporting US action on Iraq. As long as that happens, there will be no counterweight.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Parts of your argument is hard to follow but I woun't kling to that. However, the US will get "the world" against it if their interests run against the interests of "the world" and/or if the US acts in a unilateral way. There's nothing in the self interest of other nations to agree with the US as it is acting nowadays (unless it would mean survival, the ultimate rasion d'etat). If the US plays it one way the rest of the world will play along. If US acts unilaterly, the rest of the globe will go against it.

I think your first statement is correct - if the US acts against the interests of the rest of the world, they will united against America.

Since the US is acting selfless to promote the rule of law, human rights and democracy, I severely dought that the rest of the world will be against the US.

However, I disagree with the second part of your statement concerning "unilateralism." Acting "unilaterally" seems to be a codeword for not going through the UN. Given the standoff between France and the US, is this possible any longer?

[kolpo]

"You seem to be implying that it should happen, and I can't figure out why it should happen."

It is not about what I think should happen it is about what I think will happen, I actually in fact hope it wouldn't happen. I just describe what i think will happen nowhere in my post do I give my opinion about it.

I was NOT saying that this is a good thing nor was I saying that it is a bad thing, I just said what I think will happen.