[hillsidedigger]

I think China now is in a similar position to what the United States was in 1927.

[Armageddon]

Without natural resources, China ain't Expletive deleted..

[POAlex]

The Pope said something close to "In several sections of the encyclical, the Pope makes it clear he has grave reservations about a totally free market."

While not a Roman Catholic I am a Christian so I have this to ask of the Pope, borrowing from Milton Friedman; where are you going to find the virtuous people to put in charge of the world eeconomy? You won't find them becuase they don't exist.

TF

Very good point.

We've learned over and over again what happens when people are given absolute power.

[rangerone314]

"007 arch-villain zombie-proof compound?" That sounds fun, but I would prefer cloning a mini-me Here's a random thought (as if any of my thoughts are anything else):

Perhaps the super rich have been reading these posts and concluded that the world needs a rapid crash if we are going to have any chance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So they orchestrated the housing bubble and of course also the derivative black hole to such all the oxygen out of the world economy before the world economy destroys the planet. Just a thought.

I'd rather clone a mini-me also. At least I wouldn't have to worry about my wife Adult content deleted. (dwarfs really creep the wife out)

[Bas]

I'm reading a very interesting book called "of paradise and power" by Robert Kagan. It's about Euro-US relations and I found it very enlightening in regards to understanding American political thinking better as well as understanding why Europe and America (And europeans and Americans) clash over politics so often.

One of the key points of the book is that Europe for a large part lives in a postmodern world of politics that looks down on the use/thread of force and invest a lot more in cooperation and diplomacy as well as in the welfare of it's people. While Americans still live very much in what the book calls a modern/machiavelian political culture, because it hasn't had the disaster at home of what those politics can bring; it's still regarded as a succesformula. Ironically it was the umbrella of American power that allowed Europe to move on from modern to postmodern politics. And while postmodern politics maybe very succesful in Europe, what Europeans sometimes fail to realize is that large parts of the world still practice modern or pre-modern politics and that not everything can be solved by post-modern politics (at least not yet).

Anyway, there's much more to it and I am only halfway the book so far but it's a great source of information, understanding and enlightenment for anybody interested in European-American relations so I highly recommend it.


Amazon

[Plantagenet]

The "post-modern" Europeans have been involved in quite a few nasty little wars in recent years, including Britain versus Argentina, Bosnia versus Croatia and then Bosnia and Serbia, and then the Russian invasion of Georgia. European troops were also involved in Gulf War I (Kuwait) and Gulf War II (Iraq) and thousands of NATO troops from the EU are now in Afghanistan.

Considering that Europe looks down on the use of force, European countries sure use military force a lot.

[brixio]

The "post-modern" Europeans have been involved in quite a few nasty little wars in recent years, including Britain versus Argentina, Bosnia versus Croatia and then Bosnia and Serbia, and then the Russian invasion of Georgia. European troops were also involved in Gulf War I (Kuwait) and Gulf War II (Iraq) and thousands of NATO troops from the EU are now in Afghanistan.

Considering that Europe looks down on the use of force, European countries sure use military force a lot.

bas is talking about EU (which includes for example guyane in south america and nouvelle caledonie in the pacific), not Europe. Europe goes from sweden, portugal, malta to russia and chechnya. Serbia isn't in the EU. I think your view is correct bas, but other countries all over the world are copying the EU project: in asia think about the ASEAN, or the countries of the shangai cooperation area which include china and russia between the others (and iran wants to join), africa with the african union and south america with the union of south america (founded in 2008)which includes almost all of the continent. All of these countries agreed never to attack each other. Maybe your book is out of date because the european view of politics now is more widespread than you imagine. I believe US are getting isolated. European troops are in iraq and afghanistan because we're obliged, since we are in the NATO, to go and try (fruitlessy) to fix the mess done by your precedent admininstrations. we (except uk i think, but i'm unsure anout that) didn't attack with you. The problem for us is that we don't speak with a unique voice (yet), so for the US it is quite easy to turn the less expert european politicians (especially those from the "new EU" eastern but very filo-american countries such as romania bulgaria, poland chech rep) against the others, so every decision (all of the decisions until january 2010 had to be voted unanimously) is blocked. But things are changing. We have a president now, and in some times, slowly but effectively, as everything in EU, he'll become a person your government will start to know.

[argyle]

The "post-modern" Europeans have been involved in quite a few nasty little wars in recent years, including Britain versus Argentina, Bosnia versus Croatia and then Bosnia and Serbia, and then the Russian invasion of Georgia. European troops were also involved in Gulf War I (Kuwait) and Gulf War II (Iraq) and thousands of NATO troops from the EU are now in Afghanistan.

Considering that Europe looks down on the use of force, European countries sure use military force a lot.

Compare the force-projection that European countries does vs US. In active (war-operations) as in passive (presence -> bases, naval fleets,..) for a minute and see the difference in scale.. Keeping in mind the size of the military if you combine all EU countries to that of the US.

I see the Falklands-war was a reaction (defensive vs offensive) to Argentina. (it's debate-able if the Falklands should be part of Argentina or not, but the aggression was not started by the UK)
Bosina, Croatia and Serbia is more a civil war as opposed to country vs country aggression.

Both the Gulf wars, as the theater in Afghanistan are commitments because of the old NATO alliances. European support for these wars were/are more political then supported by the population of the countries involved, and reasonable numbers of soldiers were only deployed after initial combat operations stopped.
Even with EU-troops involved (mosty at the request of their US Nata partner), most of the fighting is done by the US. I see the EU troops (except UK) more like a stabalizing/police/training force there first, and then a combat role.

It is weird to note that one of the only countries not occupied during WWII (the UK) is the country from EU that took an active offensive combat role in both the Gulf as in the afghanistan wars. Such a role would never get through parliament in France or in Germany.

I agree with Bas on the fact that most "europeans" have experience war first hand (or have some relatives that did). Not on some distant battlefields, but among their homes.
Villages that were flattened by carpet-bombing, families torn apart (relatives (women, children, grandparents killed), people send to work-camps or being detained for no apparent reason,.. I recall very well the stories of my grandmother who lived to the road to eindhoven (operation market-garden) who mentions that they (soldiers in general) seemed to shoot anything that moved. Or my grandfather that got arrested by the Germans and almost shot, as retaliation of a German soldier being killed by the resistance. (I wouldn't be here if the officer in charge hadn't let those men go)

I don't want to discredit any of the sacrifices that the US made to liberate the European continent during WWII. We should all be very thank-full for this (If not for them, we would either be speaking German or Russian now). Nor do I want to imply that any loss of life is less bad as some others.
However the US haven't experienced the "ugliness" of war in the same "fashion" (moving frontlines among their homes, occupation,..).
For the most part, since the war of "northvssouth" (correct me if I'm wrong), US wars have been fought on some distant battle-fields (vietnam, korea, gulf I & II, afghanistan,..), with limited US civilian casualities involved. The US hasn't "recently" (last 100 yrs) experienced the suffering caused by war in their own homeland.

There is a quote in the movie "The Patriot" that sums this up for me pretty good: "This war won't be fought on some distant battlefield, but amongst our home. Our children will learn of it with their own eyes" (or something like it, can't remember the quote exaclty)

War is nasty & ugly! (have a read of some of the eye-witness stories of the recent Yugoslavian wars)

[Cloud9]

The next wars the U.S. fights may be within the U.S, driven by regional and ethnic interests. Most troubling will be how we deal with the Mexican invasion. Europe is getting ready to confront Islam. That may not be pretty either. So, I would not be ready relegate war to the dustbin of history and declare Pax Europa just yet.

[Ibon]

I was born American but spent 30 of my 52 years outside the states 12 of which were in Europe. From personal experience as a european resident I can confirm the main point in the book that Bas is commenting on. What I derive from this is that long term America will mature to resemble more Europe as we move through the humbling process ahead. Resemble in the sense of cooperation diplomacy and social welfare but otherwise remain uniquely with a new world view. Part of what made Europe take the post modern political view was the experience and devastation of two world wars in the 20th century together with the 30 years of cold war politics in their back yard. They had to rebuild their infrastructure after WWII while the nuclear threat was hanging over their heads for 30 years during the cold war. That is a humbling length of time to mold your politics. Can not resource depletion and the resulting economic dislocation also be viewed as a similar long term molding process to transform a culture like the US that finds itself in late adolescence reaction with the oil tit being withdrawn?

[Ibon]

The next wars the U.S. fights may be within the U.S, driven by regional and ethnic interests. Most troubling will be how we deal with the Mexican invasion. Europe is getting ready to confront Islam. That may not be pretty either. So, I would not be ready relegate war to the dustbin of history and declare Pax Europa just yet.

Assuming 11 million illegals that makes up about 2% of the US population. Not exactly an invasion. You wouldn't be talking about legal immigrants would you? I agree with you though that between here and there will be several cathartic events like ethnic conflicts etc. But you have to see things from the majority perspective of which mexicans for example will be a part of in the not to distant future as white americans will become a minority voice.

[Bas]

The "post-modern" Europeans have been involved in quite a few nasty little wars in recent years, including Britain versus Argentina, Bosnia versus Croatia and then Bosnia and Serbia, and then the Russian invasion of Georgia. European troops were also involved in Gulf War I (Kuwait) and Gulf War II (Iraq) and thousands of NATO troops from the EU are now in Afghanistan.

Considering that Europe looks down on the use of force, European countries sure use military force a lot.

There are some good arguments there, but I'd still say that Europe is quite reluctant to use force. For instance, as is being said in the book, the 1999 war against Serbia was mostly an American decision, Europe went along quite reluctantly and lots of people in europe looked on in amazement and even disgust.

Anyway, go read the book, I'd think you (as I did) could learn a lot from it, maybe even about your own country.

[Bas]

The next wars the U.S. fights may be within the U.S, driven by regional and ethnic interests. Most troubling will be how we deal with the Mexican invasion. Europe is getting ready to confront Islam. That may not be pretty either. So, I would not be ready relegate war to the dustbin of history and declare Pax Europa just yet.

Pax Europa works for Europe, though there are plenty of political problems that hinder further integration, everybody in Europe agrees there's no going back. Ofcourse wars are still going to happen but if there's any hope for humanity in the future, I do believe the European way, exported to the rest of the world is the way forward in the end. And that doesn't mean that we'll have a central world government (of which some people here seem to be scared) but slowly small parts of national sovereignty will be given up for the greater good.

And actually we're already quite far down that path with international treaties and organisations like the IMF world trade organisation, test ban treaties, the UN and all it's agencies etc. etc. things that only started after WWII.

[Ibon]

Bas,

Here is an article further on the theme

http://www.yesmagazine.org/happiness/wa ... eed-it-too

For decades, Wilkinson has studied why some societies are healthier than others. He found that what the healthiest societies have in common is not that they have more—more income, more education, or more wealth—but that what they have is more equitably shared.

[evgeny]

A fact most uncongenial for many conservative-minded folk, especially in the USA, is that it was the USSR under Stalin that thwarted a world order, without which we would have very possibly been subjugated by a global central authority immediately following World War II. This matter of realpolitik stands alongside another factor in political realism: that New York and Washington have historically been the capitals of world revolution,[1] with the globalist elites pumping money into revolutionary movements whilst Stalin was busily eliminating international bolshevism as a Trotskyite menace, and reversing many aspects of the Bolshevik social experiments at home. This essay examines the machinations by which Washington sought to impose a post-war new world order, and Stalin’s response; events which have continuing major influences on both US and Russian policies.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/201 ... rld-order/

[evgeny]

America’s ‘World Revolution’: Neo-Trotskyist Foundations of U.S. Foreign Policy

by Dr. K R Bolton
May 3, 2010

The ideological foundations of U.S. foreign policy have neo-Trotskyite foundations. Hatred of the USSR since the time of Stalin was the primary motivation for Trotskyists to the point where a significant faction considered the USSR and Stalinism rather than America and capitalism as the major obstacles to world socialism. This faction was co-opted into the Cold War and has provided the ideological impetus for U.S. foreign policy ever since.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/201 ... gn-policy/

[americandream]

China's transition to "workshop for western investor" during the Cold War is ample evidence of the USSR's stalwart resistance to the globalisation of capital. Having said that, the worst excesses of said globalisation are a necessary precursor to global socialism as the GOM spill and resulting mayhem will prove in due course, so sit back and watch the transition.

A fact most uncongenial for many conservative-minded folk, especially in the USA, is that it was the USSR under Stalin that thwarted a world order, without which we would have very possibly been subjugated by a global central authority immediately following World War II. This matter of realpolitik stands alongside another factor in political realism: that New York and Washington have historically been the capitals of world revolution,[1] with the globalist elites pumping money into revolutionary movements whilst Stalin was busily eliminating international bolshevism as a Trotskyite menace, and reversing many aspects of the Bolshevik social experiments at home. This essay examines the machinations by which Washington sought to impose a post-war new world order, and Stalin’s response; events which have continuing major influences on both US and Russian policies.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/201 ... rld-order/

[efarmer]

With both you and Dr. Bolton hailing from New Zealand, I am wondering if you consider it a nation that is ripe for the shift to socialism and might serve as the example to the rest of the world how useful the pure form (we haven't had that yet, have we?) is or could be?

We are still farting about with our republic at the moment, in particular attempting to see if corporations can run it with the results of the public choosing from corporate sponsored candidates and probably don't have the time to try something else right away.

We have had a Decider recently, and are trying out a Hopeful Thinker right now as we speak.
Never had a Foiler like Uncle Joe Stalin yet.

How about New Zealand?

So far as Peak Oil or GOM spill aftermath prepping the way for Socialism here,
my personal opinion is that we will be more about the dueling philosophies of
ad hocism competing for the public fancy in the face of staunch picking shit with the
chickens grassroots fervor.

[Tanada]

This thread has been quiet for quite a while but it occurred to me this morning.

The New World Order is the Globalist dream of a Utopia for the 0.01% and the heck with the rest of us.

Between Brexit and the EU votes coming up and the election of Donald Trump the Globalist NWO vision has been dealt some serious body blows over the last 18 months.

How do you think the NWO true believers will adapt to the rejection of their plans by the bulk of the voting public?

I strongly doubt they will just give up, they have been working this plan since at least the run up to World War I over a century ago. What do you see happening?