'It can be stated that the decline of American influence is of no interest to the majority of average Americans. Moreover, many assume that the so-called end of the US empire will mean more American money will be spent at home. Still, the shrinking of the US's imperial presence in Africa and elsewhere would correspondingly shrink its access to vital natural resources. At the same time, access to these resources will increase China's economic might and influence all over the world, the US included.
This aspect of America's global influence has not been discussed by any of the contenders for the presidency. And this is easily understood: the average Joe believes that the American system in both its internal and external applications works perfectly well. Just replace a "bad" president with a "good" one, whoever he or she will be, and the problems will be solved. '
1 posted on
03/15/2008 9:38:36 AM PDT by
BGHater
To: BGHater
Empire?
Have you goofballs lost your mind?
2 posted on
03/15/2008 9:45:09 AM PDT by
TexanToTheCore
(If it ain't Rugby or Bullriding, it's for girls.........................................)
To: BGHater
The Russians are anti-American even when it doesn't serve their interests, it's just a knee-jerk reaction. This author had better hope that his prognostications are wrong.
3 posted on
03/15/2008 9:45:25 AM PDT by
2ndDivisionVet
(http://www.fourfriedchickensandacoke.blogspot.com)
To: BGHater
If it were not for our country, most of those in Europe and the far east would be under the Russian empire. How soon they forget.....
4 posted on
03/15/2008 10:03:44 AM PDT by
illiac
(If we don't change directions soon, we'll get where we're going)
To: BGHater
The reason is simple: US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are badly stretched, and the pleas of US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to European countries to send more combat troops have fallen on deaf ears. Still, John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, notes that the war could proceed "for a hundred years". Is there anthing to exspensive for the US tax payer? For, if the europeans won't help defend them from the terrorist, why not just do it for them? After all we wouldn't want to have to pick lettuce for only 50 dollars an hour.
7 posted on
03/15/2008 10:23:20 AM PDT by
deuteronlmy232
(How I wish disgusted in maine had not been refused as a screen name.)
To: BGHater
I stopped reading at “the war could proceed ‘for a hundred years’”
If the author is too stupid to comprehend what McCain actually said or too disingenious to report it accurately, there's nothing of value in the rest of his piece.
8 posted on
03/15/2008 10:26:50 AM PDT by
enough_idiocy
(Holding my nose in 2008. I disagree with McCain on lots of issue, but with the Democrats on more.)
To: BGHater
Like the author or not - he has a good point.
Just as we wore down the old Soviet - causing it to spend itself out of existence, are the folks from China & Russia doing the same to us, via surrogates in the ME.
And 'Empire', as used contextually, is probably accurate.
Pax Britannia came and left. Now, Pax Americana may be on its way out.
10 posted on
03/15/2008 10:45:28 AM PDT by
ASOC
(I know I don't look like much, bit I raised a US Marine!)
To: BGHater
Still, the shrinking of the US's imperial presence in Africa and elsewhere would correspondingly shrink its access to vital natural resources.That's a silly assertion. You mean mineral suppliers won't sell to the US when we have less troops overseas? Does China have problem buying iron ore because it doesn't have troops near Australia or Brazil?
To: BGHater
27 posted on
03/16/2008 4:09:12 PM PDT by
indthkr
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson