And since when are the two mutually exclusive?

I love also how "common sense" is used in our society, from TC, to Darwyn, to the dumbass Freshmen in my sections. If its the way I think its common sense, if anyone disagrees with me they lack it.

"I've already admitted in the thread that parts of it are unbelievable. And this is how you treat a person that says "I'm interested in seeing more." That says all I need to hear. If you can't treat a person who's willing to listen to you as if they are an adult, how can you possibly expect anyone to treat you seriously?"

http://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/
This is the same video but gives links to all its sources.

Sources that include Defense.gov, CBS news, CBC news and other sources you would claim reliable if you read/watched them first...

Orthaic +1

this sentence, +5
"People love to hang on to 'crazy' stories, like... the official story of what happened, or the conspiracy theory.

"America's hegemony is already nearing its end. China will overtake it as a superpower in the next couple of decades. So even if you accept the above view, all the death and injustice in the middle east wouldn't have been worth it, would it? "

So what should America do then and what should it have done? Should America try to preserve its hegemony? Is it wrong to try to prevent future threats by preemptive strikes.
And if it is wrong is it just wrong morally or is failure strategically too?
And if we argue that it is wrong morally what about world war 2. Would not the world have been better off if the great powers had acted earlier against Germany or Japan?

Btw not everyone agrees that China will overtake America. Niall Ferguson argues that it will, but George Friedman predicts that China will take a steep dive in the near future. Friedman argues that China has too many internal problems to worry about exerting its influence very far beyond its immediate neighbors.
And if China will not be in a position to rival America - then really there are no other proper contenders. Furthermore if America maintains this dominance doesn't this make the world better off in balance? Allies can spend less on defense, and would-be rivals will realize that they have no chance and thus won't waste too much of their resources building up massive militaries either trying to challenge America (the way the Soviet Union did), leading to a pax-Americana. Sure there will be smaller conflicts and America will frequently behave in a way that seems morally reprehensible (propping up corrupt but friendly regimes) - but in the grand scheme of thing the world will be better off than it would be if there was no supreme-superpower. America's power makes the world more stable, more productive, and generally a better place for most (but not all).

@ spyman: "Is it wrong to try to prevent future threats by preemptive strikes?"

Yes.

"And if it is wrong is it just wrong morally or is failure strategically too?"

Morally, strategically and legally.

Why does it even matter whether America preserves its percieved status as global hegemon? America can fuck off if you ask me.

"America's power makes the world more stable, more productive, and generally a better place for most (but not all)."

Bull. Shit.

To be clear these are not strong opinions I hold JamietUK. I am just exploring the options. But I can see how the argument could work.

Let's try and break this down. If a massive calamity meant the end of America's power, would not the world become more unstable? ... because potential claimants to America's crown would immediately start vying for the position. Thus leading to other power trying to stop them and so on. As a case study look at the history of Europe from 1500 onwards. Every-time a great power looked like it was in a position to dominate Europe (the way Ancient Rome was able to) the other powers would join together and stop them. Consequently Europe has suffered from centuries of incessant warfare culminating in WW1 and WW2.

With America out of the picture wouldn't the modern world suffer from same issues that plagued Europe? And if not, why not?

.... and what about your personally Jamiet99UK. As a brit (and Britain is probably America's number one ally) aren't *you* better off with America in charge. Doesn't it make you more safe? As westerners don't we benefit from America's hegemony - economically. For one thing America's control of the sea-lanes is good for trade.

Nope as I Brit i feel we are a hell of a lot more risk due to being Americas ally.not to mention are soldiers still dying in Iraq in a pointless war which we were dragged into o yeah by the us

Give the UK government a little more credit than that.

America as a superpower only exports war. Why would that be something you would want to preserve?

So, Sicarius, you would argue that there would fewer wars without America's influence. Maybe you are right. But I my argument is that the ensuing power vacuum would possibly lead to even more wars. But maybe this would not be the case. But if so why not?

I'm not arguing that there would be fewer wars. Maybe there would be more, who can say?
I'm saying that there is nothing admirable in the america of today, the (crooked) policeman of the globe. Taking whatever he wants, by force, with his innate sense of superiority.

Why would you want to defend a war-mongering fascist state like america anyway? thats like reading 1984 and rooting for o'brian rather than winston.

I dont think a comparison with the Europe situation around 1500 is a good one. Simply because the idea of a struggle for dominance is completely different now from then.
I dont think the UN will allow states to invade other states, or conquer terretories. The power struggle now will be economic and politically. And there will be a lot of other nations who will prevent a dominant nation to arise. There are a lot more powerfull nations in comparison with the nations back then. (Look at India, Brazil, and maybe Indonesia and Mexico etc on the long term.)

i mean, then, France, England, OH and Ottoman empire vs, the first three with China, Russia, VS, Germany etc with a lot new nations upcoming.

Looking at those powers who could be potential claimants for the crown, I would say America is the best of a bad bunch. By far. Generally speaking, American values are good values - democracy, freedom of speech, liberal capitalism, equality of the sexes, relatively free of corruption, racial equality. Sure America does not always live up to those values perfectly, but it is way better than China, or Russia, or any of the Middle Eastern powers, or Indonesia etc.
It is much better that the Allies won World War 2 not Germany and Japan. And it is better that America won the cold war rather than the Soviet Union. We have to be realistic about our options.

@Victorious: "Simply because the idea of a struggle for dominance is completely different now from then."

So you don't think powers act the way they used to. Times have changed. Maybe.

"I dont think the UN will allow states to invade other states, or conquer terretories. "

I would argue that without the US, the UN would be a useless institution. Unfortunately. Moreover isn't the UN's function just to do the bidding of the strongest members of the UN?

"There are a lot more powerful nations in comparison with the nations back then."

No. Just different powers. But maybe the new power are different to old ones. I can't think of a reason why the would be. The same motivations that led to conflict in the past will lead to conflict in the future. Economic rivalry, cultural rivalry, theological rivalry etc.

typo... I can't think of a reason why *they would be [different to the old powers]

'And if China will not be in a position to rival America - then really there are no other proper contenders.'

Well there are various regional powers who would exert their dominance in the event of US withdrawal.

Brazil in South America (should be a security council member for this reason) Japan, India, Germany... Turkey and Egypt in the middle east.

Africa has it's own problems, but i don't think the existence or non-existence of American power would change that.

However at present, the EU has a higher economic output that the US. (although with a larger population it actually has a lower GDP per Capita) Even if China has it's own internal difficulties, with the present trajectories we can expect several large 'super-power' economies. India, China, the EU and US.

South America and Africa are far behind, but something has changed since the 1500s. First in Europe 'common sense' between nations is the cooperation is better than domination. Second, ideas travel much faster and people are literate. This can make a huge difference.

Do you think Libyans would have had their revolution if they were not fully aware of the success of the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions? Do you think South American countries would be trying to replicate the success of the EU if we didn't have a globalized world to facilitate the free movement of ideas?

People have not changed, People will never change, but Society has.

Technology can empower.

@ Spyman,

I think you make the mistake of thinking of the USA as the only sensible nation. You are right about values making the difference. But th USA is not the only nation with the right values. Contrary, i think the USA is these values. I think the EU, Australia, Canada etc are perfectly capable of defending the inportant values without a big USA.

Of course other countries have those values, and all the ones you have just mentioned are America's allies. But out of all of them the USA is the only one with a truly global clout. Those values are the dominant values of the world, even if the values of all the world. But the reason for this is the USA.

The right values in America 49million people live below the poverty line something is going wrong somewhere there

Typo.. even if *not the values of all the world.

Trim, America is not perfect. No where is. My point is that of the contenders, America is the best of a bad lot.

Not perfect that's a bit of an understatement.and contender for what?

You might need to read back a few posts for that to make sense. Otherwise the context is completely lost. Contender for the world's great power.
I was originally speculating about what the world would be like if America were to suddenly to lose all of its power. My argument is that there would a lot more wars as rival powers vied to fill the power vacuum.

... also regional tensions, which are currently checked might erupt without the stabilizing force of the US. Of course America is often also a destabilizing force (deliberately), but on balance the world is more stable because of America.

The world is diffinetly more unstable due to America just see the middle east for one.of America lost all it's power the eu would probably take over the surplus the with countries within the eu keep other countries in the right path the world would be more stable