New World Order or Isolationism?

Hegemonies are not eternal.

OTOH, many entites we now see as countries once were nothing more than a bunch of counties fighting with each other - and they're more stable that way IMHEO.

We need at least a strong structure that is above countries, the same way we need police and laws that apply to everyone in a city. Having the USA (or any organisation controlled by the USA) assuming that role would be like having a militia controlled by a single individual in a city.
As long as this doesn't exist, small countries could always claim that there is no such thing as an international justice, just an American one.

BTW, I wouldn't like either an European, Russian, Chinese or whatever Hegemony.

A system a bit like the EU might work OK if thought through properly. Each member state gets an equal voice, Presidency circulates through the group.

The problem is going to be if the bigger players like the US or the Europeans start throwing their weight around to get their own way. You'd end up in a situation where small countries have (to them) big issues they want to raise, but don't do so for fear of bigger nations vetoing them simply because it will inconvenience them.

Somalia is a case in point. Somalia's major export is fish. The EU (see, I can bash other entities than the US :)!) refused to buy fish from them claiming it wasn't clean enough. So where does the EU get the fish? From European fishing boats operating in Somali waters, which are the cause of the damn pollution in the first place (Somali fishing boats tending to use sails rather than engines)! Somalia can't do anything about this, despite the "Free Trade" mantra the West keeps spouting.

Problems like this have to be solved first. At the moment, I don't think the human race is mature enough to come together as one world. I wish to God (and I'm an atheist!) that it was...

Time for people to be shocked...

"An American Hegemony would be the best possible system we can strive for."

I disagree. I think hegemony, in any form, is risky.

I can't believe I'm disagreeing with you on something, Khrys! :p

My reasoning behind the American Hegemon idea is simple; it doesn't really throw its weight around like past world powers. The British Empire and the Roman Empire really pushed others around and aggressively expanded their borders and influence when needed. Protection of interests was also crucial to them. The United States seems mostly content on making it seem like it cares rather than actually caring.

Notice also I said best possible, it isn't perfect.:D But its true, Qerlin and I have disagreed on something!!!!:p :D :)

"It doesn't throw its weight around..."

Maybe not in terms of military conquest, but it certainly isn't afraid to use economic muscle to get the job done. It destabilised the economies of Thailand, North Korea and Malaysia just so it could buy up companies out there cheap. The governments of two of those countries collapsed because of it and thousands went below the poverty line (and out there, the poverty line is the one below which you starve to death...). Yeah, what the British and Roman Empires did was worse, but hey! We Brits got decent roads out of the Romans!

I didn't realize the US government owned any companies in Thailand...

In case you hadn't noticed firearms are widely available in the UK... to criminals.

If you check the stats you will see that firearms related offenses have increased, per capita, since the UK ban.

As for defending my rights against an oppresive government: it's true that the firearms which can now be legally owned by a private citizen in the US would not be much use in this situation... except that they would require that the government in question actually use force, rather than merely the threat of force, to get it's way. Public opinion is a strong deterrant.

Also, though this fact is not a very strong argument against firearms, it is a useful argument in favor of allowing less restrictive ownership of effective weapons.

You see... I just don't think many Europeans understand the US mindset. When it comes down to it there are TWO acceptable outcomes when fighting in defense of freedom: winning and dying. Anything else is unacceptable... and the shotgun next to my door gives me at least at chance at the one rather than merely the certainty of the other.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
[B]Maybe we recognize that having guns widely available leads to gun crime!

Posted by Capt.Hunter:

Quote:

---

Maybe not in terms of military conquest, but it certainly isn't afraid to use economic muscle to get the job done. It destabilised the economies of Thailand, North Korea and Malaysia just so it could buy up companies out there cheap. The governments of two of those countries collapsed because of it and thousands went below the poverty line (and out there, the poverty line is the one below which you starve to death...). Yeah, what the British and Roman Empires did was worse, but hey! We Brits got decent roads out of the Romans!

---

I wasn't aware that the U.S. government interferes in private business affairs. The big bust in Asia flattened those economies, not the U.S.. As for North Korea, they have no stable economy to speak of.

The U.S. is more of a soft hegemon, like a drowsy elephant, it doesn't really DO anything. Doesn't bother invading or threatening anyone with anything else but words. Even the British government showed more hegemonic behaviour when it responded to the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands with immediate war. No diplomacy, just war. At the very least, the U.S. could have obliterated a few Middle Eastern states on 9/11, but it didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
"It doesn't throw its weight around..."

Maybe not in terms of military conquest, but it certainly isn't afraid to use economic muscle to get the job done.

---

Neitehr do any other industrial nations. Look at China, or Britain, or France. Nature of the beast, man.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by calguard66
[B]In case you hadn't noticed firearms are widely available in the UK... to criminals.

If you check the stats you will see that firearms related offenses have increased, per capita, since the UK ban.

As for defending my rights against an oppresive government: it's true that the firearms which can now be legally owned by a private citizen in the US would not be much use in this situation... except that they would require that the government in question actually use force, rather than merely the threat of force, to get it's way. Public opinion is a strong deterrant.

Also, though this fact is not a very strong argument against firearms, it is a useful argument in favor of allowing less restrictive ownership of effective weapons.

You see... I just don't think many Europeans understand the US mindset. When it comes down to it there are TWO acceptable outcomes when fighting in defense of freedom: winning and dying. Anything else is unacceptable... and the shotgun next to my door gives me at least at chance at the one rather than merely the certainty of the other.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
Maybe we recognize that having guns widely available leads to gun crime!

---

Hooah!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Morticutor_UK
The reason I picked up on the car was because I live in Carlise - right on the scottish border, where people come down from the hills in muddy 4x4 cars. But how, I always wondered, did anyone ever need them in the super-flat, tamed & pristine county of Buckinghamshire?

I'm just saying that there's a little less choice and a little more outright manipulation than people seem to need.

---

An interesting bit for the anti-SUV parties: http://www.reason.com/0207/fe.he.four.shtml

What amazes me is these are things most of our envrio-nuts drive.

OK, the US government doesn't buy companies. But it did buy up a load of currency from the countries I mentioned earlier, then flood the market with them a few years later. This devalued the currencies, and led to economic collapse. I have a friend who was out there at the time, and he knows the results weren't pretty. Matter of fact, he got kicked out of Malaysia because the local government was so pissed at the Western world they expelled all foreign workers. Pretty tough considering he was (and, fortunately, still is) married to a Malaysian woman at the time and has two kids by her. Luckily they only had to spend six months apart (only, he says...) before he could make arrangements to bring her over here.

Oh, and the percentage of gun-related crime per head of the population is still way lower in the UK than in the US. And as long as some would-be gun-toting punk has to do dodgy deals in back alleys with nasty black marketeers, instead of just nabbing his dad's legally-owned handgun from the cabinet by the door, that's the way it's gonna stay. Yeah, criminals want guns. But we can make it as difficult as possible for them to get at them.

Currency flooding is a practice which many industrial nations use when they want to get a point accross. Such as lower your tariffs or allow more foreign investment, the United States is not unique in the use. It is the most successfull seeing as its GDP is a third of the world's GDP.

Just a note for SUV's, they may guzzle fuel in the city but on the highway they become very very fuel efficient. My dad just bought himself the Saturn Vue, 16 L. in town and something like 8-9 on the highways. Its extremely roomy, with enough space to stretch inside. You can't get any of this from a smaller vehicle. BTW, people should be able to buy whatever vehicle they want. Don't try being environmentally friendly on someone else's back.

I see what you're saying Khrys, but there's a difference between "getting a point across" and "screwing up the economy so bad it collapses".

And bravo on the SUV issue - you're right, people should be able to buy whatever cars they want. The way to go is to develop cleaner fuels.