How America Got to Rule the World

Sidney Morning Herald (Australia) ^ | January 25, 2003 | Paul McGeough

[XHogPilot]

mark to read later

[Malcolm]

LOL, the US does not "rule" the world. We exercise more influence than any other nation, but that is not the same thing. The British set up an English-speaking empire that the US was able to take advantage of after Britain's decline in the 20th century. Germany's and Japan's devastating wars also helped the US leap ahead of any competitors in the mid-1940s, even giving us the ability to hold the USSR in check on their own continent until their system collapsed. We now face the remnants of CommieWorld, (N Korea, China, Cuba), and the false religion of Islam, which we could also vanquish if we wanted to, but the US does NOT rule the world. So like others before it, these will fall from their own weight more than anything the US will do.

The US, for many years of its history, stood in isolation, staying out of world affairs until events forced us to do otherwise. The world would be a better place if we DID rule it, but it will never happen. If we had taken Patton's advice in WWII and kept pushing past Germany into the Soviet Union, the world would have been a better place. But we didn't, and thus had to endure that threat until recent times. If you're looking for a potential ruler, look to China or the Islamic nuts; they are more than willing to rule over you. But the US is a poor taskmaster, not one to rule with a rod of iron as others falsely claim.....

[HHFi]

An interesting melange of good points and nonsense. A particular pet peeve of mine is using Bush's rejection of the idiotic Kyoto protocols as an example of his high-handed unilateralism. In the first place, how many other countries have signed onto it? Apparently, almost all the nations of the world have adopted a unique policy of near-unanimous unilateralism on this issue. In the second place, if this is indicative of the great change from the policies of Clinton to those of Bush, then why did Clinton never sign it? I seem to recall a unanimous vote against it in the Senate back when Clinton was president and the Democrats still ran the Senate (and didn't just think they still ran it, like they do now).

[happygrl]

"the US has gone out of its way to disparage or belittle the international forums and treaties that were the stepping-stones to its own greatness."

The UN, NATO, IMF and other international bodies always needed the US more than the US needed them. In every way, these bodies were relevent because of the US's endeavors in them.

Never forget that, had the USSR not left the room in a fit of pique, the UN with US leadership would never have voted to intervene in Korea in the 1950s.

The blue helmets have never brought peace; they only serve to enforce it after it has been accomplished.

[TheMole]

There are some interesting points in that article, but there are somke major clangers too. The title is absurd, since the USA does not "rule the world" or want to. Then, examine the following two passages:

The first president Bush and then Bill Clinton did little to renovate or renew the international diplomatic and military infrastructure that had been vital to keeping the peace in the half-century after World War II.

[...]

The difference a decade makes shows in the Iraq wars. At this point in the 1990-91 crisis - only weeks from when fighting might start - Bush snr had built a global coalition of committed support and participation for a diplomatic and military machine that went out and won a war.

Well, which is it? This guy could use an editor at the very least.

[driftless]

The vote was 96 to ZERO. I don't believe all the the senators were Pubbies, but I could be wrong (ha, ha).

[driftless]

A real good point is the African one. Why didn't the Euros organize forces to prevent the slaughter in Rwanda and other African countries? They couldn't even stop the killing in their own backyard. Save Great Britain and a few others, western Europe has become a group of semi-socialist, hedonistic, irrelevant thumb-suckers.

[Wonder Warthog]

"The US, for many years of its history, stood in isolation, staying out of world affairs until events forced us to do otherwise. The world would be a better place if we DID rule it, but it will never happen. If we had taken Patton's advice in WWII and kept pushing past Germany into the Soviet Union, the world would have been a better place. But we didn't, and thus had to endure that threat until recent times."

Absolutely correct, and an equivalent situation exists with Iraq today. What this author seems to blithely ignore is that the US (and G.Bush the First) worked entirely within the UN directives against Iraq in the liberation of Kuwait, INCLUDING NOT PURSUING THE DEFEATED IRAQI ARMY INTO BAGHDAD AND REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN FROM POWER. The situation today sits SQUARELY on the shoulders of the UN's failure, not the US's failure.

[IronJack]

For America the Beautiful to become America the Empire, we must banish the self-loathers and socialists from our camp. If it is America's destiny to rule this planet -- and from all indications it is -- then part of that destiny involves purging ourselves of weakening factors like the treasonous Left and its fifth column handmaidens.

[Grampa Dave]

Even our friends are having a tough time with the reality of the Islamofascists in charge of most of the Middle East. Here is that reality that is so hard for them to admit:

[Sawdring]

If it is America's destiny to rule this planet -- and from all indications it is -- then part of that destiny involves purging ourselves of weakening factors like the treasonous Left and its fifth column handmaidens.

Hail Ceasar! What dictator should we unite behind to perform these purges?

[John Jorsett]

The situation with the rest of the world and particularly Europe is like having a gaggle of in-laws move in. They're unemployed and don't do anything around the house, but they want a vote in what TV shows to watch, what car you drive, what's for dinner, and how you raise your kids. When you tell them to get a damned job, start taking out the trash, and then we'll talk, they whine about what a tyrant you are.

[RightWhale]

the US has gone out of its way to disparage or belittle the international forums and treaties that were the stepping-stones to its own greatness.. . .

The Bush Administration accepts only the multinational institutions that it sees going its way - the World Trade Organisation is in, but the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocol on climatic change and treaties on landmines and even on biological weapons are out. . . .

Are we on the verge of another arms race . . .

---

"the US has gone out of its way to disparage or belittle the international forums and treaties". . . The U. S. has been patient. While the U. S. is decades ahead of all other nations in developing technology to develop deep-sea resources, the U. S. has been willing to engage in development treaties relating to deep-sea resources even when such treaties constrain only the U. S. Other countries have proceeded to assert hegemony over such resources by force.

Force is being used by Iran and Azerbayozhan in the Caspian apparently because of oil resources. Iraq and Kuwait have resorted to force over oil resources. China and Phillipines have resorted to force over presumed Spratly Islands oil and fishery resources. Pakistan and India have resorted to force over presumed Arabian Sea resources. Venezuela and Guyana have resorted to force over continental shelf resources.

The question is whether the U. S. is abiding by treaties it has signed, while others, who are energetic in their criticism of the U. S., are not.

There are several arms races on earth, most of which don't directly involve the U. S. Talk of starting a new arms race is a little late to the debate.

[dfwgator]

Its failure in the past decade to hold Iraq to account on the surrender undertakings it gave at the end of the Gulf War is surpassed only by its decision this week to put Muammar Gaddafi's Libya in charge of its global human rights watchdog.

This guy thinks that this is only recent behavior on the part of the UN. I guess he forgot that an unapologetic Nazi (Kurt Waldheim) once served as UN Secretary General.

[IronJack]

Hail Ceasar!

Does American ascendancy scare you?

What dictator should we unite behind to perform these purges?

None. The United States is a constitutional republic.

The purges need to come at the community level, from the people themselves. Treason -- like that of the Left -- must be eradicated traitor by traitor, not by any governmental organization but by the people that are being betrayed.

[PayrollOffice]

bump.

[Sawdring]

American ascendency and American Empire are two different things.

The dictionary states:

Empire:

A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.

Ascendency

Superiority or decisive advantage; domination

I encourage Ascendency but am afraid of an American Empire. I would give empire thirty years before the US constitution is totally destroyed except in name only and our freedoms with it. After that we can watch as some sort of a grand coalition of nations rise up against and destroy her.

[IronJack]

You say you encourage ascendancy. Then just what is it you would "dominate" unless it is other nations? And what form would that domination take unless it was military, commercial, and cultural supremacy?

Frankly, I think the difference between ascendancy and empire is purely semantic. And I don't share your gloom over the chances for America's success as an empire builder. Provided we learn the lessons of the past -- a big "if," granted -- it is very possible that the American Empire could be the last government this world ever sees. We are easily as powerful as Rome in its day, and far more benevolent. It can be adequately demonstrated that an American hegemony means prosperity and progress for every subscriber nation, while so-called sovereignty (a myth for the Third World anyway) simply spells more famine, more despair, and a growing gap between its disciples and civilization. Since technology grows exponentially, eventually the "developing world" will be left so far behind as to make its exploitation inevitable. I suspect we're near that point already.

[MinorityRepublican]

Pax Americana!