What do you think of America's ability to lead the West

[Samuraikoku]

Peter Griffin's "OMG WHO THE HELL CARES!" pic is appropriate here.

Basically, America "leading the West" is a Cold War fantasy that died with the Wall of Berlin.

This somewhat. It's a first among equals situation these days.
I'd argue that the EU actually """Leads.""" in that if the entire EU agrees on something, that is going to be western policy.
If just the US says something, they still require backing from other western nations.

Well the fantasy isn't dead either, my mistake... there's still Command and Conquer: Red Alert.

[Ostroeuropa]

This somewhat. It's a first among equals situation these days.
I'd argue that the EU actually """Leads.""" in that if the entire EU agrees on something, that is going to be western policy.
If just the US says something, they still require backing from other western nations.

Well the fantasy isn't dead either, my mistake... there's still Command and Conquer: Red Alert.

It isn't a fantasy
It's just you're never going to find the entire EU agreeing on foreign policy. If they did though, the west would follow their lead.

[Samuraikoku]

Well the fantasy isn't dead either, my mistake... there's still Command and Conquer: Red Alert.

It isn't a fantasy
It's just you're never going to find the entire EU agreeing on foreign policy. If they did though, the west would follow their lead.

But in Red Alert the EU follows America. Up until Uprising, when they are the bad guys of the Soviet Campaign (backdoor deals with their military contractor).

[Ostroeuropa]

It isn't a fantasy
It's just you're never going to find the entire EU agreeing on foreign policy. If they did though, the west would follow their lead.

But in Red Alert the EU follows America. Up until Uprising, when they are the bad guys of the Soviet Campaign (backdoor deals with their military contractor).

Well, in the cold war it made sense for the US to lead. Now it doesn't.

[Good Sir]

Or, you know, that could just be MAD doing what MAD does.

Comparing pre-WWII world to post-WWII is hard. Comparing post-WWII world to pre-WWI world makes no sense.
Technology changed warfare and politics forever it is far more messy of a proposition now than it ever was back then, and the economy has completely evolved too. It looks like apples to oranges to me.

I'm entirely willing to admit you could be right. All the same, I don't like the idea of screwing with the status quo.
We can't know for sure that it's MAD doing it, and do you really want to risk it.

Even at that rate, my point was the problems we face are not because America is our leader or America is doing a bad job as our leader, it is because we go around propping up or creating horrible dictators we like while playing the moral card and taking out dictators we don't like (sometimes the guys we once did like ). Our problem is that those things are what we need leaders for. You seem to be talking about a leader to unite us for mutual defense (in the real sense of protecting our territory) and for making the nations in the west not attack one another, which would be an entirely different and much more okay thing altogether.

[Samuraikoku]

Well, in the cold war it made sense for the US to lead. Now it doesn't.

That's why it died with the Berlin Wall.

And who tore it down?

Gorbachev! Russia should lead the West.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm entirely willing to admit you could be right. All the same, I don't like the idea of screwing with the status quo.
We can't know for sure that it's MAD doing it, and do you really want to risk it.

Even at that rate, my point was the problems we face are not because America is our leader or America is doing a bad job as our leader, it is because we go around propping up or creating horrible dictators we like while playing the moral card and taking out dictators we don't like (sometimes the guys we once did like ). Our problem is that those things are what we need leaders for. You seem to be talking about a leader to unite us for mutual defense (in the real sense of protecting our territory) and for making the nations in the west not attack one another, which would be an entirely different and much more okay thing altogether.

I'm completely opposed to installation of dictators. But not to foreign interventions. I'm in favor of things like Iraq where we install democratic governments.

[Good Sir]

Well, in the cold war it made sense for the US to lead. Now it doesn't.

That's why it died with the Berlin Wall.

And who tore it down?

Gorbachev! Russia should lead the West.

Moscow is to the east of Jerusalem though. The leader of the West cannot be farther east than the Middle East. It'll just confuse the hell out of everyone and no one will know where they are anymore.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's why it died with the Berlin Wall.

And who tore it down?

Gorbachev! Russia should lead the West.

Moscow is to the east of Jerusalem though. The leader of the West cannot be farther east than the Middle East. It'll just confuse the hell out of everyone and no one will know where they are anymore.

Japan is western
So is Australia.

[Good Sir]

Moscow is to the east of Jerusalem though. The leader of the West cannot be farther east than the Middle East. It'll just confuse the hell out of everyone and no one will know where they are anymore.

Japan is western
So is Australia.

No!
I'm moving to Antarctica so you can all just be "the North".

[Forsher]

I think that there needs to be some definition of terms. Because while clearly the United States wields a lot of influence in the modern world, when we talk about 'leading it' and being 'dominant', what exactly are we talking about?

Looking through the thread, it seems that we're predominantly talking about our military power and presence.

In the last few decades, with all of our military superiority, with all of our power, we've managed to get ourselves drug through wars with postage stamp sized countries that have a fraction of our spending, our 'solutions' to previous problems have turned around to be bigger problems than what they supposedly solved, and we've created a giant tax dollar sinkhole that is somehow a political third rail.

What has this 'leadership' done for us? Slightly cheaper gas than the rest of the 'free' world?

What is the return on investment of this 'leadership'? What are even getting out of it?

Right now I feel like it's the over-yolked guy at the gym flexing in front of the mirror and laughing at all the fit cats doing cardio.


...alright, that wasn't a very good analogy.

For the following analogy understanding the card game President is absolutely critical.

At this point in time the US has a great hand, it's stacked with heaps of high cards, they've even got two jokers and half the twos (but only one Ace). (For this game, two packs are used to accomadate a sufficient number of players.) The US makes no secret of these facts.

There are seven players in this game. The US is able to lead four of them who, between them, have the other two jokers, the rest of the twos and most of the aces because while together these players can match the US, this game is played by individuals. This is the free world. The US can lead because each of the individuals knows what the US has and the game is directed by that knowledge.

However, there are two other players who have the rest of the Aces but otherwise low hands. They are not lost causes because what they lack in high cards they make up with in low doubles, triples and eights (which force one to play under, once). Paying attention to the US isn't so important because whatever the US does they cannot beat it, they can, however, make moves that seriously stuff the US up. These are the Afghanistans, Iraqs and Vietnams of the world.

The US is able to use its positions (cards) to force the hands of the free world who think they're in with a shot but the unfree world cannot be manipulated in this fashion. And, if the US plays it cards wrong (as in the case of Vietnam) its "leadership" is exposed for what it really is.

[Forsher]

Orrr we could let people in other countries do what they want to do instead of trying to impose our values on them. We aren't a colonial power why are we acting like we are?

What, let multipolarity rise again? Because the Age of Empires was such a time of peace, prosperity, and progress.

Depends who you were and depends whether or not you think WWI was inevitable or just a consequence of idiocy.

Well, we're paradise compared to all of the other nations in the West. The title of "Leader of the Western World" will not be given to any other nation any time soon.

Explain.

It's also remarkably inaccurate. I mean sure we went to Vietnam, but we had to be convinced. Sure we went to Afghanistan but that's because, well, it made sense what with the general climate. But did we go to Iraq? No.

The US has only ever been able to lead the free world when it can bully, coerce or just take advantage of a climate already in place. That's not leadership that's a mix of luck and, well, sticks.

You're ignoring like all of Europe, Oceania, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.

And Canada is in a much better shape than the US, what are you talking about.

Europe is not (for the most part) in the West.

The vast majority of the Western World is in the East, some of it almost as far East as it is possible to go (before we start calling it West, I mean).

What?

Of course it is. The West includes:

North America (minus Mexico), Western, Northern, and Central Europe, Oceania, and Japan.

Technically, "the West" is basically all the developed, high-income countries in the world. It'd include Singapore and South Korea.

It's essentially the economic North.

[Forsher]

I recall reading a book written by a British author (and for the love of God, I can't recall at the moment), who argued that the world is different since the turn of the century. We are more connected than ever with trade, with communication, new technology and new weapons, all of which will prevent an all out war. He said the insanity of war as being unprofitable (as it would disrupt trade) and the sheer advancement in military technology would act as a deterrent that no sane world leader would possibly consider an option.

Of course the problem being, the book was written a year or two before WW1 broke out.

Strange how we always think this time it's different, that we are somehow the exception to 6,000 years of human violence. Oh well. History be damned, we never learn.

It was by Norman Angell and it was called "The Great Illusion".

Personally I believe in the hegemonic stability theory and think that an international system in which there is only one superpower is conducive to peace, even if that superpower does occasionally go on vicious, foolish and bloody adventures. It is better than a number of very powerful states having the ability to go on vicious foolish and bloody adventures over competing interests.

Nonetheless, how long is America's preponderant status going to last? And what happens when we once again return to a multi-polar system?

Again, that's where President gets useful again. I really like the game.

Take WWI, Germany had a slightly stronger hand than the other players and the Ottomans a slightly weaker one. The Russian hand looked good but was, realistically, only a little better than the not so polished Austro-Hungarian hand. France and Britain also had flawed hands but that was okay. The US wasn't really doing much but it was sitting on a lovely hand.

At first things work well enough, everyone chucks out a few low cards here and there with the occasional smaller sequence involving one or two players. No-one's willing to go high because they think that if they do so they'll just shut themselves out of the game after a brief moment of glory. But, they get restless/complacent. They forget there's a reason low cards are being played all the time and as the cards slowly get reduced they look and their hands and think. And after they think...

What happened is that everyone thought they would win, Germany especially. The problem is that President is all about timing when to make one's play for victory and Germany struck to soon. In a made scramble to avoid coming last (scum) the rest of the players jump in also and no-one's really thinking. Germany's hand, however, runs out of good cards and they're running on luck... they get starved out of the game by upper-mid level 9s, 10s and Jacks. The other players all slowly go down but the Central Powers have used their middling cards so Britain and France can stick around but, you see, the US who's done nothing really, is now in control and can keep everyone waiting on her moves.

[Diopolis]

It might be a welcome change.

Okay. But who should replace America as the leader then? Who can replace America as leader? (realistically).

Paraguay

[Kingsley Bedford]

Hi, I live in the West...when's the election for our leader going to be? must have missed it on the news

I hope the Scandinavian countries are going to stand, I'd vote for one of them

Sorry USA, you'd be nowhere near the top of my list....too selfish, greedy, stupid and warmongering for my liking

And Scandanavias too weak to lead anything.

Get over yourself.... Scandinavia would be a better leader of the west than America any day. They know when not to get involved... something the US needs to learn to do.

[Sidhae]

The Western world following America's lead is basically following a dying giant. Sure, USA will be a major geopolitical factor for another century or so if it is lucky, but US is already being eclipsed by China as a superpower, and with things going as they are, that nation isn't going to last much longer than a century.

But that ultimately is the fate of all empires.

[Miyager]

The Western world following America's lead is basically following a dying giant. Sure, USA will be a major geopolitical factor for another century or so if it is lucky, but US is already being eclipsed by China as a superpower, and with things going as they are, that nation isn't going to last much longer than a century.

But that ultimately is the fate of all empires.

The United States will be a major geopolitical power for probably longer than a century, luck not needed..

[Mike the Progressive]

And Scandanavias too weak to lead anything.

Get over yourself.... Scandinavia would be a better leader of the west than America any day. They know when not to get involved... something the US needs to learn to do.

What are you talking about? The Nordic model works because you are heavily dependent on trade (export) routes that the US Navy protects, and because your defense ministries are virtually nonexistent. You just hide under the rest of Europe's, but more so America's defensive shield via NATO.

So no Scandinavia should just worry about leading itself, being less ethnically homogenous, and whatever else it is you folks worry about.

[Khadgar]

The Western world following America's lead is basically following a dying giant. Sure, USA will be a major geopolitical factor for another century or so if it is lucky, but US is already being eclipsed by China as a superpower, and with things going as they are, that nation isn't going to last much longer than a century.

But that ultimately is the fate of all empires.

The United States will be a major geopolitical power for probably longer than a century, luck not needed..

Given how we keep undermining our own scientists and how we keep trashing our own education system I'd say it'll need a hell of a lot of luck for the US to stay ahead in the future. China is rising, but not as fast as we're falling.

[Mike the Progressive]

The United States will be a major geopolitical power for probably longer than a century, luck not needed..

Given how we keep undermining our own scientists and how we keep trashing our own education system I'd say it'll need a hell of a lot of luck for the US to stay ahead in the future. China is rising, but not as fast as we're falling.

Eh, no. That's been a bit overblown.

[Khadgar]

Given how we keep undermining our own scientists and how we keep trashing our own education system I'd say it'll need a hell of a lot of luck for the US to stay ahead in the future. China is rising, but not as fast as we're falling.

Eh, no. That's been a bit overblown.

Do you know offhand the percentage of Americans who accept evolution? Not YEC, not OEC, pure evolution. 22% That's pathetic, watch the anti-science nutters declare that germs don't cause disease next. Big hit with the antivaccine crowds. Global warming is a hoax, Evolution is a lie, vaccines cause autism, critical thinking shouldn't be taught in schools. Shit adds up and I for one am glad I'll be dead before the stupid hits critical mass.

[Mike the Progressive]

Eh, no. That's been a bit overblown.

Do you know offhand the percentage of Americans who accept evolution? Not YEC, not OEC, pure evolution. 22% That's pathetic, watch the anti-science nutters declare that germs don't cause disease next. Big hit with the antivaccine crowds. Global warming is a hoax, Evolution is a lie, vaccines cause autism, critical thinking shouldn't be taught in schools. Shit adds up and I for one am glad I'll be dead before the stupid hits critical mass.

So what? It's never been a generation of people that have pushed a country ahead, it has been an elite, educated class. And the same is here now. I admit we are not just destined to be on top for awhile longer, but to argue that we are going to decline because not all people believe in evolution? Because there is skepticism to global warming? Vaccinations?

I suppose I wouldn't be skeptical if the people who founded this nation weren't as doubtful as you, horrified by the degree of religiosity and the sheer greed of the everyday man. It wasn't the republic they envisioned, wanted or favored. But we became an economic powerhouse before the turn of the 20th century in spite of that and the world power in the next. The idea that because we still have a lot of religious folks or paranoid nutters means the country is damned is silly.

It has always been like that. And I think we get too caught up in rankings and statistics.

[Zweite Alaje]

Eh, no. That's been a bit overblown.

Do you know offhand the percentage of Americans who accept evolution? Not YEC, not OEC, pure evolution. 22% That's pathetic, watch the anti-science nutters declare that germs don't cause disease next. Big hit with the antivaccine crowds. Global warming is a hoax, Evolution is a lie, vaccines cause autism, critical thinking shouldn't be taught in schools. Shit adds up and I for one am glad I'll be dead before the stupid hits critical mass.

Where are you getting this information?

[Regnum Dominae]

Do you know offhand the percentage of Americans who accept evolution? Not YEC, not OEC, pure evolution. 22% That's pathetic, watch the anti-science nutters declare that germs don't cause disease next. Big hit with the antivaccine crowds. Global warming is a hoax, Evolution is a lie, vaccines cause autism, critical thinking shouldn't be taught in schools. Shit adds up and I for one am glad I'll be dead before the stupid hits critical mass.

Where are you getting this information?

More like 15 percent.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold- ... igins.aspx

[The Northern Workers]

America shouldn't be the leader and neither should anyone else. Cooperation is necessary, not domination!