CIA Predicts Fall of America

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The United States and France fought an undeclared naval war in the 1790s.

The United States went to war with Great Britain in 1812.

The United States and Mexico fought in the 1840s.

I'll over look the U.S. versus itself in the 1860s. I'll also over look the Indians wars, because those were less democracies and more anarchies.

The United States invaded numerous democracies during the 19th and 20th Centuries, but these don't rise to the level of war.

In 1900, the United States and Great Britain almost went to war over Somoa, however, a taiphun hit the island and sank the Biritsh fleet (Germany was also [resent, three way fight, but they sank also).

The United States fought Nicaragua in the 1980s.

Do you see a pattern here?

Yes, but not what you see. If I should use your examples, then South Africa under apartheid was also a democracy - in some ways even better because white women had the right to wote.

France in the 1790's a democracy ??? You must be kidding.

US in the 18' century a democracy ??? how many women, blacks and indians had the right to wote ?

GB same century a democracy ??? No, they didn't have slaves who couldn't vote, but if I'm not wrong, lots of common people didn't either have that right.

Now, understand me right, I don't think that women are more sane than men, but I don't call it democracy if half of the population doesn't have the right to vote.

Neither do I think that a country where slavery was legal are to be considered a democracy.

If one considers parlimentary monarchies to be democracies, then WWI was the biggest war between democracies.

I don't - the simple fact that women didn't have the rigth to vote says that it wasn't democracies.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon

You're incorrect in the first part. The United States is the 800 lb. gorilla of the area. When they don't like something it tends not to happen, such as Canada legalising pot. When they want something they tend to get it, such as when they needed assurances that our ports of entry would not be a backdoor to their security measures post 9/11.

Nope.

Witness New Zealand's anti-nuclear laws. The Americans whined and threatened about that.

Our response: "stick your nuclear weapons up your arse".

Canada just doesn't have the balls.

No, New Zealand doesn't have an auto pact.

[Odin]

The US's problem is that it's government structure makes it pluralist heaven, which means heaven for big bussiness and other powerful interests. If the US wants to survive we need to convene a constitutional convention and write a new constitution.

[alva]

Originally posted by BlackCat

France in the 1790's a democracy ??? You must be kidding.

US in the 18' century a democracy ??? how many women, blacks and indians had the right to wote ?

GB same century a democracy ??? No, they didn't have slaves who couldn't vote, but if I'm not wrong, lots of common people didn't either have that right.

Then you'll never have a democracy. In 200 years they will say the same thing 'bout us.
What Europe/US a democracy??? No way, animals weren't even allowed to vote.

If they called it a demo during their days and it was in line with the morality of the time, then for all purposes, it was a democracy.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
It also depends on how you define democracy (i.e. the myth about democracies and wars). The United States is a Republic, and due to the steady erosion of constitutional checks on the executive, i.e. Congress shall have the power to declare war, we now have an imperial presidency. Combine that with computerized gerrymandering of districts, you have a system that actually perverts the democratic intent of the founders and is closer to Putin's ideal of guided democracy.

This is THE big problem right now. Gov. Swarztenager has a very interesting proposal in California to remove politicians from the whole redistricting process. Instead a panel of three judges would decid and they could not use any voting records or population satistics other then the total number of people. They'd be responsible for making districts as compact and geographically logical as possible.

Arnie was saying in the last election 170 districts (state and Fed) in the state were up for election but not one changed parties because the whole systems been rigged by the parties. I doubt the Democrates will agree to go along with the plan though unless the Republicans agree to unjerrymander Texas. I doubt they'd do that. ;0

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by alva

Then you'll never have a democracy. In 200 years they will say the same thing 'bout us.
What Europe/US a democracy??? No way, animals weren't even allowed to vote.

If they called it a demo during their days and it was in line with the morality of the time, then for all purposes, it was a democracy.

If that should be a fact, then I'll suggest that we get rid of the word democracy and invent some new words that covers certain periods view upon it. What you actually are saying is that even the Saddam regime in Iraq was democratic because that was how it was defined in that time and under those circumstances.

Please try to be serious.

[chequita guevara]

Get rid of districts all together and replace it with proportional representation.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by BlackCat
If that should be a fact, then I'll suggest that we get rid of the word democracy and invent some new words that covers certain periods view upon it.

Democracy = rule of the Demos or citizens.

If you want to argue otherwise, then I'll posit that the original statement that no two democracies have gone to war is true because no democracy has ever existed.

[Ramo]

I think the Senate should be PR (with delegations proportional to the population), and the House FPTP as it currently is (but with nonpartisan redistricting, etc.).

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by el freako


You sort of make my point for me
If nothing can be accomplished without the US's approval then what you have is not a pooling of sovereignty by nations but the surrender of sovereignty by weaker nations to more powerful ones - the name for that is hegemony.
Hegemony relies on coercion, the hegemon gets what they want either through the application of force or through buying others off with resources - as such this system of international relations is similar to monarchy and as the strength of the hegemon is reliant on their relative power the system is unstable in the long run.
Europe's pooling of sovereignty relies on persuasion, changing the views of your partners is harder and takes more time than coercion (and it requires the buildup of trust), but the effect is far more durable as it does not require the constant application of power or bribery. This system is like the more representative governments that sprang up in western europe in the 17th and 18th centuries.

It seems that way when you skip over the part where I said we've had EU like priviledges between Canada and the US for 60 years or more.

As far as the hegemon is concerned, there is some of that perhaps. However, it is more the relative sizes in the relationship. Something like 30% of Canada's GDP is tied to trade with the US. When our politicians talked about legalising pot, the Yanks made noises about tightening up controls at the border. Our politicians decided that they would rather not have trade effected by delays. The cops still ignore simple possession and the Yanks don't care.

The relationship does cut two ways though. They need us as well. The auto industry is integrated beyond any ability to seperate it without substantial upheaval. They are highly dependant on Canaidan energy in the form of natural gas and hydro, not to mention other raw materials.

Hegemon or biggest customer? You tell me. We've had the level of trust that the Euros are looking for and we've had it for 60 or 70 years. Just that not many here would find an integration like that of the European Parliament at all desirable, and it isn't necessary since we are talking two or three states that have lived in peace for well over a century.

In short, we don't need a say in American domestic policy to have a fully integrated economy and an integrated military, and we wouldn't want it. We sure as hell wouldn't want 300,000,000 Americans having a say in our social policy. Just as I'm sure many Americans would not want 30,000,000 more Democrats.

An EU solution would not be an option for NA. We don't need it, and not many would want it.

I would say that the coming-together of the US states in the late 18th & early 19th century was more akin to other states that came together under the idea of nationalism - like my own Britian did in 1603-1707 or France after the hundred years war and Germany and Italy during the 19th century.

I believe the current coming-together is different as it is not based on nationalism but on cooperation, and thus represents something new in systems of international governance.

The Yanks came together for cooperation as well. It was easy for them, sharing the same language and many other things, but there were differences between New England and Sourthern cultures.

The 'one nation, damn all else' came later, didn't it?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
The way things are going latley, I wouldn't be surprised if we lose a huge amount of power.

Our political power has been spent, relying soley on intimidation, not cultural values or moral leadership, or *gasp* good will.

All the good will from the last 60 years is being thrown out the window.

The military is overextended and our economy has gone flat.

Horrible. This sh1t is so easy. You don't go looking for trouble because trouble come looking for you.

DUH! DUH! DUH!

Can we get Clinton back ???

Clinton was just another president who didn't have enough vision to manage the inevitible relative loss of American power after the Cold War. In fact it was his administration whose repeated boasting about being the world's only superpower while drifting on foreign policy made the current situation inevitible. Bush Jr. will make it obvious to everyone and at least that is a position where forward looking policies can be addressed at every level politically. Too bad he isn't the man to do this, but he's out in only 4 years and the coming troubles should be obvious enough to have a major impact on the next elections.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Why we (the West) do not aggressively court India baffles me.

I agree, though the recent situation in Afghanistan required some improvement in relations with Pakistan. But why we didn't improve relations faster, earlier is a mystery.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon

I take it that you don't think this gives you and yours the right to rule the rest of humanity.

We'll be satisfied that New Zealand are our complete b!tches, and nothing less. Actually there is nothing less.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by el freako


You sort of make my point for me
If nothing can be accomplished without the US's approval then what you have is not a pooling of sovereignty by nations but the surrender of sovereignty by weaker nations to more powerful ones - the name for that is hegemony.
Hegemony relies on coercion, the hegemon gets what they want either through the application of force or through buying others off with resources - as such this system of international relations is similar to monarchy and as the strength of the hegemon is reliant on their relative power the system is unstable in the long run.
Europe's pooling of sovereignty relies on persuasion, changing the views of your partners is harder and takes more time than coercion (and it requires the buildup of trust), but the effect is far more durable as it does not require the constant application of power or bribery. This system is like the more representative governments that sprang up in western europe in the 17th and 18th centuries.




I would say that the coming-together of the US states in the late 18th & early 19th century was more akin to other states that came together under the idea of nationalism - like my own Britian did in 1603-1707 or France after the hundred years war and Germany and Italy during the 19th century.

I believe the current coming-together is different as it is not based on nationalism but on cooperation, and thus represents something new in systems of international governance.

Power differential or democracy? What's the difference between an integrated state consisting of the U.S. and Canada and the EU? The U.S. would still be able to dominate due to its sheer size, which is no different than what happens / will happen in Europe when Denmark and the Netherlands alone don't want some stupid law to take effect. Is this hegemony? Europe is broken up into more states currently, but don't think for a moment that there aren't differences between the various states and regions of the U.S. that aren't as stark as those in the EU. The only difference is that we have a common language to a much greater extent.

[alva]

Originally posted by BlackCat


If that should be a fact, then I'll suggest that we get rid of the word democracy and invent some new words that covers certain periods view upon it. What you actually are saying is that even the Saddam regime in Iraq was democratic because that was how it was defined in that time and under those circumstances.

Please try to be serious.

Sadam's regime could hardly be called the standard in today's world.