On air: Do you want an end to US domination?

Is that a scenario that you would welcome? This report says US influence is on the wane. How do you feel about increasingly powerful roles for India, Russia and China?

See our Flickr stream from Austin City Limits. Comment on today’s debate below.

Listen live to WHYS at 1800GMT.

Read local news report about our visit.

229 Responses to “On air: Do you want an end to US domination?”

  1. 1 Brett
    November 21, 2008 at 14:50

    Aw, well we may want to start making some friends before the world decides to treat us the way we’ve treated others in the international arena (often with brute force or swinging our [over] weight around economically or politically).
    How do I feel about increasing roles for two countries which we have butted heads with time and time again (Russia and China)? Not too excited, we haven’t been all too nice or cordial with them, nor they to us.

  2. 2 Lubna
    November 21, 2008 at 14:53

    Hi gang ! :-)… A world where America doesn’t lead ?! Wow, it does seem like a perfect world to me, and I’d really love to live in it ! :-)… May be I’d prefer a world where alive moral conscience is the ultimate leader, call me romantic or unrealistic, but that’d be my pick… With my love… Yours forever, Lubna in Baghdad…

  3. 3 Brett
    November 21, 2008 at 14:53

    So wait… which “On air” topic is going to be on air? Both?

  4. 4 Alfredf Garlo jr.
    November 21, 2008 at 15:14

    There is a common saying that says ”every good thing must come to an end” once more it says ”too much of every thing ,is good for nothing” let America give way to people who are willing to seek the welfaer of people and not self interest.


  5. November 21, 2008 at 15:20

    I am more worried that the values of freedom, justice, equal rights, enginuity, compassion for others, and right to life that spurred the US into leading the world will decline. It has already become extinct in the policies as of late anyway.

  6. 6 Cameron Gill
    November 21, 2008 at 15:21

    Hello WHYS

    I’m a student from St. Kitts pursuing graduate studies at the University of the West Indies in Barbados. I view the increase of Russian power with trepidation. Just as the US has shown a propensity to be arrogant and reckless in wielding military power, in Iraq for example, Russia’s recent extreme use of force in Georgia shows the same propensity. India’s growing power has the potential to be a positive thing for global security. I’m somewhat uneasy about China’s ambitions and India could be a useful counterweight to China.

  7. 7 Roberto
    November 21, 2008 at 15:24

    “” How do you feel about increasingly powerful roles for India, Russia and China? “”

    ——- Americans have voted to weaken the US after the fall of the Soviet empire.
    Country would have been better served with an eggplant in the oval office the past 16 yrs.

    India and China have a lot of inequities in their culture which has been dependent on the failed Western economic model. I project any rise in their power in the world will be neutered by civil disturbances over distribution of dwindling wealth.

    Russia has a history of massive civil wars and is currently losing population from low birth rate and high infant/child mortality. Other than natural resources and still substantial manpower and technology, their culture would have to transform itself before they could wield more than regional power. Huge influence in Europe though.

  8. November 21, 2008 at 15:27

    The US domination has always been a source of resentment. Its end may be a cause of celebration for those who have predicted its downfall, but it can also be a source of worry for those who will have to cope with the new emerging powers like China and India. Many will find it difficult to adjust to their domination.

    The rest of the West will try to keep the USA in a leading role as they all share the same political and cultural values.

    China, once becoming a world power, will just export its repressive measures to the rest of the world. It can be a superpower in, say, 20 years. But it’s unlikely that it will become a democratic country with a federal system. In other words, it’s very improbable that it will change its name from the Popular Republic of China to The United States of China.

    The USA ,with its vast resources, still has the means to keep its leading role. But it has to keep its efforts to do so on many fronts. In the past it used to be just the Soviet Union. Now it’s the EU, Russia, India and China -currently the most prominent blocks it has to contend with.

  9. November 21, 2008 at 15:31

    Everything has a beginning, a middle, and an end.

  10. 10 Steve
    November 21, 2008 at 15:34

    Oh boy, this should be a good one. Let the US bashing begin. Haven’t seen this before!

    Yes, we all know what great humanitarian work China will do for the world, after all, they only killed hundreds of their own people for peacefully protesting at tianamen square.

    Yup, and if you get on the wrong side of russia, you get stabbed with a poison umbrella or get poison put in your food.

    I’m look forward to more dominance by these angelic nations!

  11. November 21, 2008 at 15:36

    I think this is a positive development. I also think that due to the ever expanding capacity of the electronic infrastructure, the notion of a country/nationality will itself become irrelevant. Today people live close to where they work, in the future people will work from home by loggin in to some virtual office.

    So, it may well be the case that Google will be the dominant power in the future; countries may simply cease to exist.

  12. 12 Vijay
    November 21, 2008 at 15:37

    Brasil,Russia,India,China are just starting to emerge ,and as yet they neither have the capacity nor technical capability to even look after their own popualtions needs let alone try to provide world leadership.

  13. 13 Steve
    November 21, 2008 at 15:41

    How exactly is russia going to become so dominant if oil prices continue to decline?

  14. 14 Dan
    November 21, 2008 at 15:44

    Let us look past George W. Bush, Iraq and present day Republican administration policies that are about to change dramatically.
    Absent its nuclear weapons Russia is a 3rd world country whose economy is petro-dollar based and is subject to the fluctuations of oil prices. They are now in serious trouble as oil is below $50/bbl.
    China with an ever increasing unemployment level is facing severe internal dissent and perhaps uprisings.
    Neither country has contributed positively to world social growth. Increasingly China is being reviled in the world as it is seen creating unemployment in developed countries by eviscerating their manufacturing base, ignoring any environmental controls on its emissions, selling contaminated products worldwide and plundering natural resources.
    The United States has lifted more people out of poverty, freed more people, fed more people, provided medication, helped reduce infant mortality, developed more philanthropic people and organizations, stabilized markets, insured the safety of the sea lanes, and installed institutions that kept the peace and maintained some semblance of world order. People will sit smugly and complain about the iniquities of America and certainly the United States has not been perfect but they cannot name ONE country that is or has been.
    If India can overcome the terrible crushing poverty has real potential.
    In the world today there are 20 countries that have progressed and stepped up to participate in the G-20 to help decide leadership and policies and despite the certain to come for more “equality” from 3rd world countries no one can rationally expect that Somalia, the Tribal Areas of Pakistan or Afghanistan will ever progress into a modern society to have a say in world affairs.
    America’s economy is hurting but we are the broadest and most dynamic economy in the world and that gives us a preeminent position to lead the world.

  15. November 21, 2008 at 15:49

    I would love a try. I’m from Singapore and while we are still a traditional country of the east, our economy are getting so affected by the matters of the US.

  16. November 21, 2008 at 15:51

    A more even balance around the world can only be beneficial…for everyone, including America. A bull in a china shop is a situation just as unhappy for the bull as it is for the china shop!

    However, maybe this report is guilty of not thinking far enough “outside the box”. I once met a professional “futurologtist” who actually predicted the end of all national governments as we know them by 2025. His rationale was that, by then, we’d all live in a cyber/virtual reality world and–in a virtual world, how do governments collect the taxes that keep them in power.

    As I spend chunks of my day discussing world affairs with people at the other end of the earth, maybe he was right.

  17. November 21, 2008 at 15:52

    It doesn’t matter if the US domination is on the wane. What matters is the domination of democratic values and the prosperity around the world.

    The US needs the world as the world needs it. But the world can survive with or without its domination. It’s up to the Americans to adjust themselves to the fact that they can’t be a superpower forever, in the same way that Britain adjusted itself after the WWII that it was no longer the biggest empire on earth and it had shrunk to a middle power with few territories to govern outside Great Britain.

    It will be interesting to see how the US will look with its predicted geographic distribution; that is, it won’t have any racial majority, and with reduced global domination.

  18. November 21, 2008 at 15:53

    Shame!! Shame!!! and Shame again on that report. As an Africans from Sudan iam realy chartered by that report because i personally dont want the world to be turn back to its previous autocratics leaderships of governments(dictatorships)though the outgoing Americans gvt is been acussed of poor performances, it have now been changed, America will still be UNRIVAL SUPERPOWER in another century to come not because of their military strengths but because of their values and ideologies toward others. America is now very popular in my country despites it decline WISHES YOU A BETTER FUFURE AMERICANS PEOPLE

  19. 19 Vijay
    November 21, 2008 at 15:57

    Do you want and end to US domination?

    The USA Is in decline in every respect ,morally,culturally,socially,economically ,militarily(bad leadership)the values that formed the nation have been superseded(declaration of independence,constitution,bill of rights)the executive and legislature are not working together.The judiciary is political.
    However the USA is the only show in town for the forseeable future.When other countries are ready and able to shoulder the burden of providing leadership then the USA should step back and share responsiblity.

  20. 20 selena in Canada
    November 21, 2008 at 16:05

    Another article…


    Why does any country have to dominate? Isn’t it time to rethink the paradigm?

  21. November 21, 2008 at 16:09

    @ Steve

    How exactly is russia going to become so dominant if oil prices continue to decline?

    Well, they could always borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from the Chinese like the USA does!

  22. 23 Brett
    November 21, 2008 at 16:11

    How exactly is russia going to become so dominant if oil prices continue to decline?

    Global warming opens up more land for Russia to become a dominant food supplier for the world?… Profit?

  23. 24 Dan
    November 21, 2008 at 16:11


    ….and I’d love to be young and handsome but that will not happen either.

  24. 25 Steve
    November 21, 2008 at 16:19

    @ Brett

    What about when Russia doesn’t get what it wants then threatens to withhold those food shipments like it does to get its way with threatening other nations with cutting off natural gas?

    Do you think if Russia became the breadbasket of the world, it wouldn’t start wars if they threatened to cut off the food supply?

  25. 26 VictorK
    November 21, 2008 at 16:24

    China: a brutal, materialistic despotism (Tibet, Xinjiang); Russia – no better (Chechnya, Georgia). A world in which such semi-civilised regimes have more power will be the worse for it. India is not such a concern, since its leaders – with their colonial heritage – are relatively decent. .

    Neither Russia nor China will engage in humanitarian missions or life-saving military interventions of the kind undertaken by the US in places like Bosnia, Kossovo and Somalia. Even the Iraqi intervention, and the removal of a despot, is on the credit side of American power (a pity the Iraqis fouled up their golden opportunity so completely).

    The people who will welcome a decline in American power and influence – the more extreme Western liberals, Africans, and Muslims foremost amongst them – will be the first to beg the Americans to come to the aid of the starving and the soon-to-be-massacred of the future (when did you ever hear a Chinese or Russian official express the slightest concern over Darfur or Congo – but people will still welcome an increase in the influence of these countries!).

    And don’t rule out the possibility of military conflict between China and India (again), or China and Russia (the Russians still hold territory that they stole from the Chinese when they were strong enough to do so in the Nineteenth Century).

  26. November 21, 2008 at 16:24

    I thought America was just more a guide than dominate. I always have felt that we were just the muscle for the rest of the world. We try to keep our noses in everyones business like your parents do? i would classify us more as enforcers. I hope that all changes though… I would rather be the peace keepers and diplomats rather than the guns.

  27. 28 George Waterston
    November 21, 2008 at 16:25

    This morning I heard a guest say that Iran wanted to become “a regional hegemon.” That phrase rubbed me the wrong way. Iran’s ambitions, it seems to me, are more modest. It wants to have its national sovereignty respected , to stop being pushed around by the Americans and it wants control of its own natural resources. Beyond that it just wants to be able to recount the history of Israel as it really is: the history of the means by which American and European Jews have attempted to remove non-Jews, and that includes Muslims and Christians for whom Palestine is or was their ancestral home, from a land which according to Jewish myths God promised to the Jews and expand its borders beyond those established by a UN partition which itself was illegal, disregarded the UN charter and did not respect non-Jewish Palestinian rights. To reduce everything to competing hegemonies is to eliminate the concept of right and wrong in human affairs. Why do Brits of the Tony Blair or the Niall Ferguson school of verbosity seem to take a vicarious pleasure in the imperial hubris practiced by the Bush neo-cons? Iran is not part of any axis of evil. This is not WWII. Another question: has the BBC been bought and paid for by Russian expatriate oligarchs. They’ve bought the soccer teams. Why not the BBC too? Maybe the oligarchs are right. If everything is for sale, all you need is money to be accepted in London. Where is George Orwell when we need him?

  28. 30 selena in Canada
    November 21, 2008 at 16:31

    On thing about you Steve, you are predictable 🙂

  29. 31 Brett
    November 21, 2008 at 16:33

    @ Steve:
    Do you think if Russia became the breadbasket of the world, it wouldn’t start wars if they threatened to cut off the food supply?

    Oh I absolutely think that they would use breadbasket-status to their advantage. But would that lessen the fact that they could potentially be a leader in world food supply dominance?

  30. 32 Steve
    November 21, 2008 at 16:34

    @ Selena

    So are you 🙂

  31. 33 Dan
    November 21, 2008 at 16:35

    It never ceases to amaze me how these conversations degenerate into hatred of Israel. What do these people think they will get when they have destroyed Israel?
    Judaism is the parent of Christianity and Islam. As an attorney can you tell us what one gets for killing ones parent?

  32. 34 Steve
    November 21, 2008 at 16:36

    @ George

    If what you say is true, why are there more Palestinians today than there were in 1948 or 1967? Israel is obviously doing a very poor job at the ethnic cleansing you are alleging them of. And of course you ignore the wee little fact that their own arab brothers didn’t give them Independence between 1948-1967, but I know that hurts your bash israel stance, so we should all ignore that.

  33. 35 DENNIS
    November 21, 2008 at 16:43

    NO, I do not want the end of US domination…

  34. 36 Brett
    November 21, 2008 at 16:46

    Oh Jesus Christ… Not another topic down the toilet because of Israel and Palestine….

  35. 37 Ramesh
    November 21, 2008 at 16:47

    Not really but surely not in a way the dominance is of no use either to the US or the rest of the world.

  36. 38 selena in Canada
    November 21, 2008 at 16:49

    Whether or not we want it, there will be an end to US domination. History is littered with the ruins of civilizations that dominated and then were relegated to the scrap heap and the subsequent subject of an archeological dig.

    Can this change? It seem unlikely considering humans are about the same now as we always have been.

    Domination breeds the desire to dominate and the merry-go-round keeps moving.

  37. 39 selena in Canada
    November 21, 2008 at 16:52


    I apologize for my contribution to the subject. 🙂

  38. 40 Brett
    November 21, 2008 at 16:56

    @ Selena:

    It’s like in Jurassic park where they dangle the cow over the T-Rex enclosure to coax him out into coming to eat.
    Stop dangling cows infront of Steve…. You know whats going to happen 😉

    What worries me most about the shift of power is the massive amount of debt the US has amassed. What is American society going to look like in 50 years? 100 even? *shivers* Scary….

  39. 42 John in Salem
    November 21, 2008 at 17:06

    The neo-con fantasy of the New American Century was always just that – a fantasy. It may take a couple generations for things to level out but as long as the concept of “superpower” goes in the trash I’d be happy.
    And while American-style capitalism worked great in the 1950’s when there were only 2 billion people in the world, it’s hard to imagine an economy based on nothing but confidence in a world of 9 billion in 2050.

  40. November 21, 2008 at 17:07

    United States of America and Great Briton together can easily lead the world until the end of time.(domination is not the right word) J.M.P.

  41. 44 jonas amoako
    November 21, 2008 at 17:08

    ahh! BIG NO. USA will not at any point in the history of this world be taken over by any country after it has asume the status of world supper power for all this while.
    to be frank, it seem obvious that USA can be taken over by these upcoming countries: india china, rusia etc. but having listerned to Barack Obama’s acceptance speeh on the 4th of Nov, i am confident US will bounce back from the recession and continue to take their position as world leader

  42. 45 Luise
    November 21, 2008 at 17:09

    US domination is going to end? I can’t believe it. It sounds so UNLIKELY; but China or India or even Russia?
    This doesn’t sound better to me. I’m not quite sure, actually.

  43. November 21, 2008 at 17:10

    Well, It would be initially good for America. The entire complex and all the human resources could work on setting up a comfortable, and effective life for our own average people.

    The problem is humans are rather a nasty lot when they grow empires. Most all people especially in the poorer countries I’ve lived in are simply wonderful. There is always hospitality extended to strangers from distant lands and each other.

    However, there are always bandits, pirates, and evil empires that show up. Since the American experiment began a couple hundred years ago, we learned the hard and costly way, that trying to avoid the distant bad guys does not work and eventually we get attacked or sucked into a downward spirall that ends up costing us a lot more blood and treasure, than if we had gone in and tried to deal with world wide growing (BAD GUYS) events.

    The human animal being what it is…..you can virtually guarantee that big time trouble will come to the world if America tucks in its feathers and leaves for its own good. Eventually it will be all our fault for not getting involved.

    troop on the North Oregon Coast

  44. 47 Jennifer
    November 21, 2008 at 17:10

    Re: “The USA Is in decline in every respect ,morally,culturally,socially,economically ,militarily(bad leadership)the values that formed the nation have been superseded(declaration of independence,constitution,bill of rights)the executive and legislature are not working together.”

    I believe the statement above is very true. We have effectively weakened ourselves by our own actions. As time goes on, I think we will see the effects of that in negative ways. It will be interesting to see who gets blamed for all of that.

    The way I have always believed is that the U.S. is always looked at to do something; when we do we do it wrong. However, if we were to do nothing then we would be selfish, uncaring, rude Americans who think and do only for themselves. It is a no win situation. We will always be the bad guy.

    Re: How do you feel about increasingly powerful roles for India, Russia and China?

    Not sure yet but it doesn’t make me feel too great. For anyone to say that these people could be talked to and reasoned with is just amazing to me! I personally don’t want the US to be on friendly terms with other countries if it means weakening our security. There is a difference between having respect for another country and working together and trying to work with them when you have no idea what the other country’s real motive is.

  45. 48 Dan
    November 21, 2008 at 17:10

    @Mandie in Cape Coral, FL

    That may be but I think what they get is that they lose their moral compass and grounding. Only chaos will result.

  46. November 21, 2008 at 17:12

    Superpowers can’t live for long on credit…especially when they’re borrowing from countries they may wish to dominate.

  47. 50 Anthony
    November 21, 2008 at 17:14

    Yes, let’s hear America this and America that, but imagine China or Russia with our power, and with their mentalities. That would be interesting since we all know how fair they are.

    Better yet, I’d love to see the Middle East with our power….or should I say all nations dead except for the Middle East in that situation.

    Let’s face it, absolute power corrupts absolutely, but in the U.S., I think we’ve been much fairer than ANY other nation that has been the reigning super power.

    -Anthony, LA, CA

    P.S. @ Lubna

    No offense, but if the world never got involved with the Middle East, I seriously doubt you’d be able to go to medical school, and you’d prob get beat just for suggesting it.

  48. November 21, 2008 at 17:16

    it is long overdue,but the united states trust in God would not allow them to go the way of others

  49. 52 Brett
    November 21, 2008 at 17:17

    @ Jennifer:
    We have effectively weakened ourselves by our own actions. As time goes on, I think we will see the effects of that in negative ways. It will be interesting to see who gets blamed for all of that.

    The way I have always believed is that the U.S. is always looked at to do something; when we do we do it wrong. However, if we were to do nothing then we would be selfish, uncaring, rude Americans who think and do only for themselves. It is a no win situation. We will always be the bad guy.

    Exactly! Don’t think I could have said it better myself.

    And as troop said, when the US withdrawls and starts focusing on itself and not the rest of the world, there are going to be some major issues.

  50. November 21, 2008 at 17:20

    The fact is that America will always be like that great grandmother that everyone respects the history and achievements of, and therefor as long as America is involved it will usually have the last say. The only way it would lose it’s top spot would be if it had it’s own civil war again and the country was torn apart. But the culture is too great and the people too willing to stand up for her that I don’t think it will happen again. And I know everyone has that grandmother like that.

  51. November 21, 2008 at 17:24

    America has its own trouble internally. We are in the process of discovering that private industry can’t run commerce anymore. The struggle that the rest of the world has to watch is the struggle for a government taking over the running of an economy, which at one time ran pretty well on its own.

    So now we have incompetent economic players getting too greedy and attempting to self destruct an entire engine that supports its democracy.

    We might end up having a government running the nuts and bolts of the society that was never really ever thought of before. But the sheer numbers of failing individuals in America may cause the very end of what used to work for us fairly well.

    Maybe it was Marx who predicted rather well that this was a nebulous system that actually could not work. Maybe there are certain strengths to socialism and the commies that we will be forced to adopt in order to feed, clothe, medicare, shelter and care for the increasingly vulnerable individuals in the masses.


  52. 55 Syed Hasan Turab
    November 21, 2008 at 17:30

    USA is really super power, aparantly question arises for how long:-
    We know the importance of this status.
    Who is responsible to maintain this status.
    Do we have respect & regard for our friends & allies those who help us out to reach at super power status.
    Does our policy maker’s & lobbiest’s are competant enough to draw a fire wall around us & our status.
    Can we maintain sincear & stratig relation’s with our friends & allies.
    We are in need of a task force in this regard.

  53. 56 gary
    November 21, 2008 at 17:31

    Goodness gracious! How happy a place seems the world without a spectre of the US to push it around! Hey folks, get real. If we’re less than 5% of the world’s population and we’re lording it over everyone all the time, what reasonable conclusions may be drawn concerning the creative, organizational, technological, political or educational sophistication of most of the other 95%?
    You are indeed fortunate I do not run the US, as I would allow your wishes to come true. I am an absolute isolationist.
    love and best wishes for your future,

  54. November 21, 2008 at 17:36

    Better a US dominance then of Russia, China, India or any other country.

  55. 58 abdikadar kiev
    November 21, 2008 at 17:41

    in my opion , i think every dog has day . everybody knows the reason , its like of good leadership , economicaly ,militraly , so thers no doubt if america will continue like the way it si right now there will be many many countries stronger than america , like chine ,RASIA,IRAN,TURKY,INDONISIA INDIA. AND MANY OTHERS.



  56. 59 George, Surrey
    November 21, 2008 at 17:42

    This is just a ploy to flatter middle income-countries such as China, India and Brazil to act as fresh lenders to sustain the age-old consumer frenzy in the US and other industrialised regions.
    The plan here is to cut taxes and increase spending….
    Where will the money come from?
    You guessed it. It needs to come from somewhere!
    Which is why we’re having this sweet talk of “shifts in economic balance of power” -to make such countries feel like lending is giving them control.

    The fact is, the debt will expand, and subsequently be renegotiated or wittled away through crafty currency exchange practices; backed by the typical blackmail of keeping the global economy buoyant through supporting American consumption).

    Hopefully the emerging powers will not buy this raw deal. But do they have a choice?
    Here the debtor has so far had the upper hand, as leading World bully.

    A likely outcome is that there will be an effort to continue the artificial debt-supported growth of the US of the past decade, and expand it to other developed countries. With the rest of the world reduced to playing by the rules, relinquishing any recent gains and putting its development on hold.
    The role of “butler”, at best! Far from seriously challenging the current conjuncture..

  57. 60 John LaGrua/New York
    November 21, 2008 at 17:43

    Pax Americana served it’s purpose vs the Soviet where there was a common threat .now the US must of necessity trim it’s role to match it’s declining resources and redefine it’s strategic interests.A reappraisal of Mid-East policy ending economic and military support for Isreal and assuming the role of peacemaker could help resolve many issues there .Isreal has a per capita income as high as France and is quite capable of standing on it”s own .Egypt similarly with proper reforms could do without US aid.Combined this could save the US taxpayer over 5 billion dollars a year..That’s a lot of unemployment benefits for American unemployed US workers.The US military budget is swollen ,700 billion dollars and the need for bases in 120 countries is nonsense.All these expenses are paid from borrowed money from China ,a future global challenge which is giving us the credit to buy their rope to hang ourselves..The new Adminstration must make serious changes in it’s view of US global role and trim sail or risk econoic and political ruin.

  58. 61 Atticus
    November 21, 2008 at 17:50

    To those who criticize Russian actions (rightly so) in the past decade or so;
    They are doing nothing different than Western powers, and the US in particular. The examples of the US embargo on Cuba and the selective austerity forced on Latin American nations so that they may qualify for aid are no different than Russia withholding resources to a region as a form of coercion. Of course, there are countless other examples.
    Perhaps the new Russians learned too well from Western practices? Their economy smacks of neo-liberalist polices to the extreme. It might be argued that their nationalist stance on the diplomatic level could be construed as posturing to a certain extent, and I am sure they have no intention with a direct confrontation with a major power, not with all the money to be made. Their more forceful statements are no more potent than those of Western nations who justify interventions (legal or no, covert or no) in the name of freedom, democracy, or just plain civil order.
    It is obvious at this point that the US is overstretched. Perhaps the world is larger than previously thought by those who envisioned a pax americana after the end of the Cold War, regardless of whether this vision was a dream or a nightmare. Perhaps what finally emerges from the end of the bi-polar model of the Cold War is a truly multi-polar world, not one with a super-power and several major powers. Rather one with multiple powers more or less equal in influence and power?

  59. 62 brianmac
    November 21, 2008 at 17:51

    Domination by one country is the road to despotism. Thankfully, though, the US is a democracy which means the loss of one despot from the world – for now, hopefully!

    Those contributors from the US that see their country’s role in the world through star-spangled glasses really need to look harder at what has been happening around them – for decades now. The unquestioning support of Israel (I support Israel in so many ways, but Palestinians need their own country now!), the deaths of half a million Iraqis in an illegal war, countless interventions in central/south America etc, etc.

    Just as in the free market , we need competition, and the sooner this happens geopolitically the better.

  60. 63 Anthony
    November 21, 2008 at 17:52

    America is the worst country to be in charge, except for every other country on earth.

    -Anthony, LA, CA

  61. 64 Jennifer
    November 21, 2008 at 17:57

    @ Mandie

    Many comments here suggest that there is little or no respect for America or the people who live here.

    The “culture” we are embracing is going to be our downfall. We have lost touch with the things that made such a strong force in the world.

  62. 65 Michael Hollington
    November 21, 2008 at 18:12

    Yes, and I’d also like to see a reduction in the number of World Have Your Say programmes devoted to America. I think World Service Listeners – even if a good proportion of them are American – need to think and learn about other parts of the globe, in particular those which will be of increasing importance in the future.
    In my lifetime, the best US President so far has been Jimmy Carter. Under him I felt at ease, because America seemed like just another country. I have good hopes that Barry Obama – partly brought up, remember, in Indonesia – will prove a similar President, who understands that this planet belongs to all of us, and we have to live together and accept deep differences in philosophy and values. I hope he will take heed of Zapatero’s remarks to George Bush, that fell on deaf ears: “We like Americans very much, but why do you have to have a mission?”
    As a footnote, I might say I am currently listening to my favourite BBC World Service Programme, Europe Today, with the incomparable Audrey Carville. Why don’t we have more broadcasting of this quality? Why isn’t the European project – agonisingly slow in its realisation, but still for my money the best show in town, one in which we are not simply poodles – given more prominence in your programming?

  63. November 21, 2008 at 18:13

    Yes I want an end of US domination because I think domination without opposition is a bad thing. How much of the US output from the second half of the 20th century was a direct result of its competition with Russia? Maybe for the US and Europe to regain its focus it needs somebody with an opposite ideology in a position to challenge it? Perhaps the resurgence of Russia and the emergence of China and India might provide the emphasis to up its own game. Domination without an opponent can be bad as it allows bad habits to set in.

  64. November 21, 2008 at 18:22

    I do like to see a shift of power from the US to another country. However, as a liberal Iranian with the experience of living in Armenia, a post-Soviet country, for 6 years, believe me that you do NOT want to live in a world dominated by Russian mentality, it’s going to be such a “gray” world.

    I’m currently living in the US, and I should confess that I’m not totally satisfied with my new home. No offense to the American people, but this country is not as secular as a world-leader should be, and in contrast to western Europe, it’s really difficult to find intellectual people here. Young people, specifically, are really uninformed of what’s going on in the world and the nation is on a path to stupiditiy. Just take a look at the cheap TV shows! Unfortunately, other countries are following the same path, so the US should either wake up and act as a real world model (this means making changes to the educational system, insurance, and some drastic changes to the media) or give up.

    Nevertheless, I do not want to see a world dominated by the Russians or the Chinese. They’re just too narrow-minded and naive for running the world. I do hope that the US changes its direction and continues its role as a world leader for at least another 50 years.

  65. 68 John in Salem
    November 21, 2008 at 18:27

    It is really depressing to read all this dialogue about who is going to dominate who in the future. Our planet is getting smaller by the day and at some point we need to come to grips with the fact that we have to work together or we’re toast. It’s that simple.

    We either leave the jungle behind NOW or we’re not fit to survive as a species.

  66. 69 Thea Winter - Indianapolis IN, USA
    November 21, 2008 at 18:28

    All I have to say is be careful what you ask for you may just get it. But this is all unfolding like the Bible tells us. Are we living in the End Times??? Maybe or maybe not. Only God knows what is going to happen.

  67. November 21, 2008 at 18:28

    In a sense, the U.S. being less dominant is a good thing. Because unchecked arrogance and greed worldwide has consequences. And now the U.S. has to deal with that.

  68. November 21, 2008 at 18:29

    I know, there are a lot of negative comments here about Americans, but everytime there is an invasion, a wrong doing of some sorts, who do they call? Who do they ask for advice from? Why does the WORLD market revolve around America? Back to my theory, everyone can complain. Everyone can say they wish we would fall, but deep down they would be lost if we did.

  69. November 21, 2008 at 18:30

    It would be a big catastrophie if the united states loses its dominance to nations such as china and russia. The US may have its own agenda but they believe in true democracy, freedom and humans rights which they have spread through their foreign policy. A world with china as a super power will boost dictatorship and human rights abuse with their non interference policy. Russia has no respect for true democracy and their dominance will not be in the interest of the world. The bush administration has tarnished the image of the US, but i believe with the right policies Obama can regain the love of the world.

  70. November 21, 2008 at 18:33

    It is inevitable any nation must decline after a period as a leader and the same goes for the US. It is guaranteed, however, to fade into insignificance in the short term. The alternatives, India, China or Russia are not robust enough replacements themselves as it stands. They may have a short reign at the top but cannot prosper. India has a massive uneducated and impoverished population and to lead the world they need more than an over inflated sense of identity or a desire to do the lowly jobs the west outsources. The same for China with their overwhelmingly poor rural population or menial workers propping up the economy with cheap labour for the developed world’s corporations looking for higher profit. And with a lumbering, corrupt political system they have along with communist ideologies it cannot lead the world. Russia suffers from what Russia has always been weighed down by, too many little czars like Putin who feel they are entitled to rule the masses with no better reason than large egos. Corruption and criminal activity characterise Russia and only through the good fortune of having massive energy reserves that are desperately sought by their neighbours is Russia lucky not to have imploded.

  71. November 21, 2008 at 18:34

    Might take some years to happen but it has begun.

  72. 75 andrew gerfers
    November 21, 2008 at 18:35

    I think it makes complete sense that the US is waning in its influence around the world. Most of the ideals of our country have run their course and we’ve missed the opportunities to invest in ourselves for a better and more secure future. Witness: we have one of the largest rates, per capita, of incarceration. Our War on Drugs has led to a nearly failed state in our southern neighbor, Mexico. We’ve violated the sovreignty of iraq, we’re threatening to throw iran into further chaos because we won’t respect their sovreignty either! Our unchecked Capitalism has devolved into a global crisis, widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Its no wonder that Norway and Denmark report the highest levels of personal happiness. Both these countries blend socialism and free markets, removing the grotesque ”Western” desire to get ahead at all costs, eschewing the Golden Rule and fair treatment of our brethren, in favor of greed and excess.

  73. 76 ivan miletic
    November 21, 2008 at 18:39

    Greetings from Canada.

    I have some questions.

    If America indeed has had a dominant influence, then this idea suggests that America fills a role of some sort in world that it, with its dominance, seems to provide.

    Otherwise why would it be there? If the world was ‘allergic ‘ to America or if it was somehow ‘wrong’ would it not be gone sooner than later? I believe it would be.

    The fact that it has not vanished earlier suggest that it has filled an important role in our overall human development and evolution, for the lack of a better word.

    What is, or was, this role?

    The thread of an idea that I am reading on this site is that its days are over. To me this means the world no longer needs it.

    Is this true? Have we outgrown it?

    With the American influence gone, what would be its replacement, be it good or bad? Does anything need to replace it?



  74. November 21, 2008 at 18:40

    I think Sweden should be in charge! I like chocolate!

  75. 78 Dan
    November 21, 2008 at 18:43

    @Anthony November 21, 2008 at 5:52 pm

    America is the worst country to be in charge, except for every other country on earth.

    Sir Winston Churchill could not have said it better.

  76. 79 Thea Winter - Indianapolis IN, USA
    November 21, 2008 at 18:43

    @ Kamyar Kojouri
    “really difficult to find intellectual people here”

    The problem is not with the American people it is with the school systems. Unfortualty they do not teach independent thinking. I was lucky to be in school during the 70’s and 80’s when we could question the teachers about their stands and even disagree with them in a polite way. Now the only way a school system receives government money is based on test and aptitude of the students on Math, English, and science. Our children no longer have a mind for imagination or play because they set with the TV or video games. I am very sad about the lack of critical thinking today.

    This past election is a prime example. I do my homework and looked at the political stance. I did my research and voted based on that. Sadly one of my co-workers just voted based on party affiliation not on the facts of each.

  77. November 21, 2008 at 18:46

    The United States is the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world but it doesn’t have any qualities to lead the world. In fact it is the main obstacle to world peace and prosperity. Most of the Americans seem to be good people but their government is necessarily failing them.

  78. November 21, 2008 at 18:51

    @ Dan,

    Lol, Russia is a Third world country? Absent the space program, music, art, literature, political power, oil reserves, and nuclear weapons. I would love to hear what your definition of a “first world country is”.

    @ Question

    It is concepts based not in reality and solely on Americans egotistical self view that has lead us to this point. Despite many of my colleagues accretions, I believe it isn’t too late. But we had best cast away these old beliefs that America is right in spite of the facts. What we are starting to look like is that uncle you thought was soo cool growing up, but now you see his crazy antics as the result of being an alcoholic, immature low life degenerate. The world is starting to grow up around us.

  79. November 21, 2008 at 18:53

    I hope to God it is the end of the presumption and illusion of US dominance. Perhaps we as a country and a society would be willing to get back to the business of building a stronger country for the benefit of the citizens of this country, rather than imagining ourselves all things to the whole wide world, or at least the parts that have something we want. We could do with less external focus, less bullying and more attention to our crumbling/broken infrastructure, the pall that is public education and the various and sundry financial messes we’ve got brewing on all burners.

  80. 83 Roberto
    November 21, 2008 at 18:53

    RE “” Because unchecked arrogance and greed worldwide has consequences. “”

    ———– The current Pope Benedict is being given some props for predicting the financial crisis.

    Apparently he gave a speech in 1988 in his role as a cardinal where he predicted the fall away from morality would lead to the above results in the coming decades.

    The world is not hungry for more dominance. It’s hungry for real leadership, and in case anyone noticed, since the fall of the Soviet empire there have been no real great global leaders. Some may argue Mandela, but his leadership value was less about governance and more about the concept of freedom.

    Obama has a real chance of leadership here, but he moves from full campaign coffers to bankrupt government, so he may be too handicapped to fully emerge.

  81. November 21, 2008 at 18:55

    @ Thea
    Here Here!!!
    I couldn’t agree more that education and knowledge are keys to a great society. I would really like to see the false success that no child left behind gives. I hope that it is all restructured in the near future for all of our children. Allow teachers to tech and not just read and memorize.

  82. 85 Dan
    November 21, 2008 at 18:59

    @Faruk in Dhaka, Bangladesh via email

    The United States is the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world but it doesn’t have any qualities to lead the world.In fact it is the main obstacle to world peace and prosperity.

    The United States has lifted more people out of poverty than any other nation or groups of nations. We have lifted your own people in Bangladesh out of poverty and are first to offer aid each year when the monsoons cause flooding and death.
    Do you think that Pakistan can do a better job? Maybe Afghanistan or perhaps Bangladesh.
    Additionally without the power and influence of the United States wars have been prevented and more people have lived in peace but then again perhaps Darfur would be better at the task of preserving world peace.

  83. 86 andrew gerfers, austin, tx
    November 21, 2008 at 19:07

    Until Tolerance and Empathy are employed as virtues with which to govern, the globe is doomed to just blow each other up. Let’s all agree to disagree, but bodily harm to one and another should NEVER enter the equation! If the US can begin to lead by example, perhaps other nations will follow. In this modern world, the first country to treat other nations as equals and as brother and sisters, that country that’s first to the punch will make severe inroads to global peace!

  84. 87 Steve
    November 21, 2008 at 19:09

    Imagine if a person acted the way some of the audience acted, “but I did what you wanted me to do, why don’t you like me still?” That’s so showing of low self esteem, the people who think voting for Obama will get people to like you more. Approval seeking is a sign of low self esteem.

  85. 88 John Foster
    November 21, 2008 at 19:10

    I think it is enivitable that power concentrated dissipates. There is an entropy at work to this. But I think whether that is good or bad depends on where you stand. For someone in the US it might look like a bad future, but if Great Britain didn’t evaporate after it’s empire came apart then we might be not that bad off. But for the people of Cuba, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iraq, and even Iran they might be happy to not have us dominate. But only if another domineering power dosen’t step on them in turn.

  86. 89 archibald in oregon
    November 21, 2008 at 19:11

    The US. paradigm is obsolete and has been for quite a while, it is just that there has been an abundance of capital, real or imagined that has kept the facade of effectiveness in place. The US is ill equipped to dominate because it has taken up bully status on the worlds corner and bullies never last, even when they are well funded, because people get tired of them and eventually revolt. History is the best answer to this question, it is just that we now think in such immediate terms that we can see only short term consequences and /or achievements.

  87. 90 Ian Lucas (A Brit in Canada)
    November 21, 2008 at 19:13

    We have been hearing this refrain almost every time there has been a major dip in the U.S. economy. Remember when Japan was going to be the dominant force in the world’s economy? What happened? They have experienced 10 years of deflation!
    The same story now with China, and to a lesser extent India, and of course the ever present big bully Russia.
    The strength of the U.S. lies in its political system that keeps the government in check more than in any other so called Western Country. The Free Market attitude, and devolved governance State structure, encourages maximum entrepreneurship unlike in any other Country. The U.S. continues to be a benevolent Super Power unlike the Russians, and the Chinese. If any Country can move closer to U.S. style economic dominance, it will be from India. The political systems in Russia and China will always be a drag on innovation, prosperity, opportunity and benevolence.
    The U.S. has proved, time and again, that it will remain the best possible Super Power for the world as the rest of it evolves towards more rational behavior.

  88. 91 Hank Duke
    November 21, 2008 at 19:14

    Hej, As an american expat , currently living in Sweden, this is a bit of a breath of fresh air. The american dominance paradigm has been a myth at best, and from my perspective a fiction made of whole cloth, since its inception. In response to the folks speaking now; the US is a world power as opposed to the world power… I voted for Obama and am enthusiaastic about the US participation in the global community for the first time in twenty five years… Get over it, get used to it and start being open to the world around you… Hank

  89. 92 Steve
    November 21, 2008 at 19:15

    Why do we need a world power. We need a world leader for peace.


  90. 93 Dan
    November 21, 2008 at 19:15

    @Dwight From Cleveland

    Thanks…I thought no one had read my post.
    Russia lacks the infrastructure to be a first world country.
    Freeways and inter-city transportation along with a distribution system are almost non-existent.
    Wealth is concentrated in the Oligarchs. What chance does the average Russian have to get rich? Almost none.
    Art, literature etc do not, in my opinion, make a country a first world country. Look at the art & poetry in certain Islamic countries.
    You are very correct when you say that the world is growing up around us. However we seem to be stuck in adolescence held in place by political correctness and groups that sue whenever anything new/different or at all is tried.

  91. November 21, 2008 at 19:16

    The USA can’t easily relinquish its world dominance as long as the rest of the West rallies behind it to keep emerging powers like India and China from getting to the front. In the meantime, the West as a whole should keep its economic superiority. If it drifts down due to the current recession, the countries in the corner can emerge as the new world masters.

  92. 95 Jennifer
    November 21, 2008 at 19:19

    Power corrupts. There is ethnocentrism and arrogance in thinking the US is the only nation suited for world power. No nation is. There must be balance in power and in end to imperialism.

  93. November 21, 2008 at 19:19

    Do I want the end of US dominance? No. I think all of our grandstanding aside, the US being a dominant power in this world has offered more positive infuence than negative. Good or bad, our government at least shows some stability; which cannot be said for other growing powers in the world.

  94. 97 Steve
    November 21, 2008 at 19:20

    What’s with that guest on the phone? All he’s doing is bashing the US, talking as if he personally knows it, while not being an American, nor living in the US, yet he thinks being a non white in the US is being a “nightmare” based upon second hand knowledge.

  95. November 21, 2008 at 19:20

    No, I do not want an end to US domination, but we gave it up. I wanted an end to US corruption first. Since that did not happen, we are now reaping what we deserve. Despite all the promises of a utopian future proclaimed by our newly elected Mr. Wonderful, his ultra-liberal and socialist policies are sure to bring only harm to the USA and further weaken our already struggling nation. Since corruption is on the increase in the USA and not decreasing, we can expect to become a weak partner among many in a European Union, or even a one world government, that dictates what kind of society North Americans must live in, how they work, and as alluded to in yesterday’s forum, how they must think. Or else.

  96. 99 johnstone
    November 21, 2008 at 19:21

    America is far from perfect as we see each day in our Free Press.

    America has made grave mistakes during the past 8 years and before, both domestically and internationally. We see these things in our Free Press and when we are permitted to dissent and criticize our government.

    I’m no nationalist but I know these opportunities to be informed and to dissent do not exist in Russia, China and India.

    We are, at the end of the day, a nation OF the people and I believe people, in a large enough group, find the stasis of justice and equality.

    If nothing else, we are the most generous nation both per capita and in total dollars.

    For this reason, America is acceptable to me as the dominant nation on the planet.

  97. 100 khalid
    November 21, 2008 at 19:21

    Khalid from Kabul Afghanistan.

    I think if US don’t change the arrogance attitude – it will fall apart. In my view – they are losing it right now. Americans might think they are leading the world, but honestly, people are fed up with them. I hope president Obama will change it.

  98. 101 Henry
    November 21, 2008 at 19:21

    I live in the US now and feel that the US losing some power would be a good thing for us as a nation and for the world. To be blunt, it would put us in our place and I think that’s what we need right now.

    As far as global warming goes, the US hasn’t lead in the global warming space at any level, we didn’t sign the Kyoto Accord, we haven’t led anyone in reducing global warming, other nations have been leading us and we’re still debating on whether or not to do anything about it while the rest of the world has already begun to do something.

    Russia, China or India as a world leader I don’t think would do any better than the US, but, if they were to gain some power I think it would be a better thing for the world. The reason is if they were to gain some power it would force more countries, including the US to listen to other views and force more people to try to understand each other, and that seems to be what is lacking in our government/people, the ability for them to understand other people in the world. Lacking the ability to understand each other is the problem with the world today I think.

  99. 102 Andrew
    November 21, 2008 at 19:25

    Great powers come and go. That’s the cycle. Remember when the sun never sets….?

  100. November 21, 2008 at 19:25

    I think that the world should be afraid of dominance by one of the emerging economic powers in the world, whether Russia, China, or one of the Gulf States. For all of the US’ imperfections – past and present – we have had a long tradition of social welfare that accompanies the responsibility of economic & political power. Whether exercised at home or abroad, the US has managed to use its clout do a lot of good. I don’t see the Vladimir Putins or Hu Jintaos of the world being willing to do the same. On the contrary – their new-found wealth has enabled them to strengthen the hands of evildoers around the world (see: Sudan, North Korea, Burma, and so forth). The US is imperfect, but it’s the best choice for now.

  101. 104 John Foster
    November 21, 2008 at 19:26

    If most of our influence was really exporting our Bill of Rights, then I would agree that we shouldf influence a lot. However, the way we work in the world mostly is to secure our economic and political power, regardless of individual rights.

  102. 105 rabinder henry
    November 21, 2008 at 19:26

    India can never ever be a world power, since it doesnt have its own technology to be independent and too many internal problems .

    US will continue to be the superpower because they remained to be creator of modern technology by acquiring quality human resource from across the world .

  103. 106 Timothy from Cincinnati, OH
    November 21, 2008 at 19:28

    I see the foriegn policy of the US will begin to receed to a pre WWII status of more focused on isolationism. A focus on diplomacy and decreased military spendin is needed to maintain a level of influence with other nations that supports a dove plicy rather than a intevention in all the world’s problems.

    An influential country is an economically strong country. The current downward trend of the global economy and America’s current focus to technological advancement especially in energy independence should begin to set a foundation for continued world influence.

    A rebirth in what it truely is to be American, addressed by our founding fathers and the constitution, would bring forth a cultural influence. America’s foundation is freedom, freedom to choose your destany. Freedom’s wonderful power has been slightly forgotten in the current culture.

    The country that stays true to their cultural identity, peacefull diplomacy to limit aggression from other countries, and continues economic strength will be the current superpower.

  104. 107 khalid
    November 21, 2008 at 19:28

    And Hey – Americans needs to listen to other nations too. If you come with an attitude that you have ALL the answer – you could be wrong. Just to be clear – in my both messages – I am not attaching the American people, but the foreign policy makers and leaders.

  105. 108 USA
    November 21, 2008 at 19:28

    Maybe this will be a good thing. Other countries need to stop relying on America for Military and Financial support. America needs to start taking care of America.
    We need to start following our own Constitution.

  106. 109 Steve
    November 21, 2008 at 19:28

    China isn’t an innovator. It’s a copier. It steals US technology. I cannot believe someone suggested that the US isn’t an innovator anymore. We’re developing the Ares Rocket which is designed to get us back (has your nation been to the moon?) to the moon and then to Mars.

    For lack of “innovation” NASA discovered underground glaciers on Mars.


  107. 110 la la
    November 21, 2008 at 19:28

    i hope Canada takes over.Go Canada!!!!

  108. 111 Renato Machado
    November 21, 2008 at 19:29

    The bill of rights is almost perfect. The only problem is that U.S. do not use it abroad. They protect their citizens but do not care about citizens of foreign countries neither the environment.
    It would be good if other countries start to take decisions that affect the whole world, because USA only cares about its boundaries.

  109. November 21, 2008 at 19:30

    The USA remains tops in aggregate terms, population, GDP, rich-poor gap, inclusiveness, etc.

  110. November 21, 2008 at 19:31

    Whether we like it or not the US will lose its total predominance but no other country can acheive the global dominance the US did post WWII. I multi polar world is both inevitable and a good thing, as the US should not have a hegemonic influence but one of many important powers. US exceptionalism is not helpful

  111. November 21, 2008 at 19:31

    If you want to know what a world not led by the us looks remember how the Chinese, Japanese, Russians and others treated their prisoners of war. How many Russians etc…. would live here if given the chance? It’s obvious, the USA is it.

  112. 115 andrew gerfers, austin, tx
    November 21, 2008 at 19:32

    A nation is merely a geographical boundary. All this ‘pride’ business misses the whole point. We ALL bleed red! No exceptions! Until governments begin to respect the individual liberties and pursuits of happiness of its citizens, then there is no way to move forward to a more tolerant and empathetic future. Whatever country begins to govern from a more humanistic stance instead of purely economic ways, that country will emerge as the leader.

  113. 116 Brett
    November 21, 2008 at 19:32

    Will an end to US domination mean we will have to give up our obese, wasteful, and unsustainable lifestyles?!
    And for once have to submit or come to an agreement where we are not the clear-cut ‘winner’?
    OH NO!

    A world where other nations have equal or close to the amount of power the US has?!
    OH NO!

    You mean, we’ll have to be a TEAM player?!

    Did you not get that memo? The US does not play well with others. We’re the spoiled World Brat who always needs to get our way.

  114. 117 Mariana Somma in San Francisco
    November 21, 2008 at 19:32

    OF COURSE other countries can be as innovative as the US! There are millions of intelligent people all around the world that would produce and benefit if they had the resources. How many foreigners does the US hire for highly skilled labor jobs!!?? These people would not have to come to the US if they had the same opportunities in their own country. If they US had to “take care of itself” I think we would definitley struggle. If the US wants to remain a super power we need to start from the bottom and EDUCATE our youth so we have our own skilled labor.

  115. 118 chris
    November 21, 2008 at 19:32

    I think it’s nearly inevitable that China will take over the leadership role at some point in the near future. Many of their best and brightest have been educated in the US.
    The question is, “How fast can China learn to marshal their population to be economically powerful.” The Chinese have a vast amount of brain power from which to draw and can steal the best of technology to get started.
    We’ll know when we see the Chinese land an exploration team on Mars ahead of anything happening anywhere else on this planet.
    It was US domination of the space race that generated the technology on which we rely today. The US has dropped that batton for lack of foresight. Who ever picks it up in a serious fashion will be dominating the world in the future.

  116. 119 Paul Habib
    November 21, 2008 at 19:33

    The greatness of a nation has less to do with power and wealth than it does with character. Many nations have lost power and wealth and maintained their greatness due to their character. We have our constitution which encourages all the innovation and freedoms that make our nation great. We also have our location in North America which gives us access to our cherished environment that sustains us and allows us to flourish. We as Americans must chose to accentuate the development of our character. That is were the future of our greatness will revealed.
    Paul D. Habib

    ~ __0
    _ -\<, _
    ( * )/ ( * )

  117. 120 Bogdan, NC
    November 21, 2008 at 19:34

    I think it is funny how so many people cling to “American Innovation and Technology” as the thing that will ensure the U.S. remains a dominant power.

    Innovation and Technology doesn’t simply happen due to geographic location. Nobody adds “creativity” and “genius” to the water in the U.S.

    The ideas and creations which allowed the U.S. to be a leader in technology came from highly educated and intelligent people.

    If you look at the trends in U.S. education compared to other countries in the world you will see that the U.S. is trailing many other countries.

    How can the U.S. remain a dominant power solely on technology and innovations when we are already importing highly skilled workers from OTHER COUNTRIES because we do not have enough trained Americans to do the jobs?

  118. 121 Tom D Ford
    November 21, 2008 at 19:34

    “WHYS: The end of US dominance?”

    Ask yourself if you know anybody anywhere who wants to be dominated by anybody?

    I sure don’t!

    Hitler wanted to dominate the world and the Allies got together and stopped him. Same with Stalin. Now we have the PNAC, The Project for The New American Century, an apparently Neo-Fascist group, and they want to dominate the world.

    I suggest that history could teach us that nobody wants to be Dominated and we ought to learn to get along with other peoples as equals! After all, that is what Our US Declaration of Independence boldly states, “all men are created equal”.

    We used to have a saying in ski racing, “I’m not the best but there is nobody better”, and we would compete fiercely on the hill and party together after-wards as friends. I suggest that is a better political model to aspire to.

    I suspect that many of the problems in the world are reactions to people who want to dominate. Stop the “Dominators” and the problems will largely cease in response.

  119. 122 Kenny In Florida
    November 21, 2008 at 19:35

    If America falls from power, we have no one to blame but ourselves. People as individuals must take responsibility for their actions, a country comprised of people must do the same.

  120. 123 Deidre, Cleveland OH
    November 21, 2008 at 19:35

    If the U.S. (government) is going to continue its arrogant attitude as it so well displays within its own shores, then the day of “dominance” will come to an end.

    Do not be fooled into complacency that everything is ok because Obama is the President. It has been a long time coming and our President Elect is one event in a long list of those that need to come to frutition. A more balanced distribution of power would be beneficial.

  121. November 21, 2008 at 19:36

    China/india/russia/ or whom ever as a new world leader has to except that others will except them. The world can crittize the U.S, they can protest the U.S and we liston, comment, disagree or agree with whom ever that doesn’t like what we do (or likes what we do as a leader). Let the world see China/russia take the heat without becoming hostle. To be a leader one must learn to turn the other cheek; let me see the others do that.

  122. 125 aziaticgirl
    November 21, 2008 at 19:37

    For every action there’s a reaction – We (US) can’t continue to be the BIG bully. Just look how our current Pres. Bush is running his admin. – And do you remember his speech? “Either you’re w/ us or against us.” Well – heck that’s just being bully. US power is waning indeed.

    Sooner or later (if we continue to practice the things we do base on self-fulfillment/greed/or what WE Think is best for other countries) the ones(other countries) being bullied will rise and/or oppose. Voicing out they are. Enough is Enough.

    Sure we are one of the wealthiest (not quite – most of our debts —> China) but who are we to dictate that others follow our ways?

    In this land of confusion/hypocrites we definitely need to focus on restructuring our broken infrastructure. Less of the bullying.

    Just as we are proud of our roots/nation/wealth/democracy – we need to consider the possibilities that is leadership is waning and the big question is Why?

  123. 126 Mike in oregon
    November 21, 2008 at 19:37

    The US is the world leader it is now because of the WWII/depression generation that stood up when they were needed. Subsequent generations have done a lot of talking about US leadership, but not backed it up with a lot of action and/or execution. We’ve fallen in love with our image and developed a hubris that our grandparents never had.

    The world is now at a point where it needs that sort of leadership again (because of the economic and environmental crises) and if the US steps up, it can maintain its status. If we don’t, we will have abdicated our responsibility, and deserve whatever results of our self-inflicted wounds.

    I am hopeful that we can take the necessary action to turn the world’s direction around, without the unabated pride and ideology that was plagued us for too long!

  124. 127 Greg Allen (Portland, OR)
    November 21, 2008 at 19:38

    I’m old enough to remember when America was not the only super-power. My parents remember when there were no super-powers.

    As an American, it will be a relief to return to those days!

    However, as other nations gain prominence, they must also take leadership on the issues of human rights, peacemaking, climate change and economic justice.

    So far, I’ve been disappointed in India, Russia and especially China in this regard. Japan and Korea have been admirable and could do even more.

  125. November 21, 2008 at 19:38

    great program!

    Ok, I don’t think we need ANY superpowers. I’d like to see the world run like a global democracy. Superpowers like USA, USSR and the UK have used the rest of their world for their own benefit. It’s time for some equality.


    PS We should also stop economic growth driving us to destruction and start living sustainably

  126. 129 Peter, Bath UK
    November 21, 2008 at 19:38

    I’ve never met an American I didn’t like, but when I think of “America” in inverted commas I get all sorts of images. I think American politics and in particular it’s foreign policy, has for too long been unrepresentative of the warmth and caring nature of its people. I just hope Obama is as nice a guy as he seems and is able to do something to redress the balance of world opinion. He’ll need to kick the NeoCons and the Christian fundamentalists out of government though.

  127. November 21, 2008 at 19:38

    The power of USA may be weak for sometime but, no country can be world superpower because they all don’t promote true democracy. God bless America.

  128. 131 Maccus Germanis
    November 21, 2008 at 19:38

    I don’t think the US is quite so dominant as are the ideals that it has come to embody. I would be more than happy to see US dominance fade as liberal (classically defined) republics come to be their own full embodiment of these ideals. I fear that many that look foward to the US’s waning of influence want these ideals to fade as well.

  129. 132 Ron Ritter
    November 21, 2008 at 19:39

    When I look at the past, anytime there is a disaster in the world, natural or manmade, the world always looks to America to help them out. If another country would take over this leadership role, would they be willing to help out the rest of the world like the USA has always done??? I highly doubt it.

  130. November 21, 2008 at 19:39

    The question is not whether any one nation will dominate or lead the world, but the evolution of a system of world governance that transcends the Nation State. We cannot have a system of world governance that allows the domination of any one Nation State. The wider global interests of the world must always take precedence, no single nation state should be able to limit or exploit the affairs of other nations, but every nation state must moderate its interest in respect of the greater global good.

  131. 134 Colleen
    November 21, 2008 at 19:39

    wealth and military power may make a superpower, but these things do not necessarily make a leader… the US could best lead the world by giving more power and influence to international organizations. if we stopped relying on our own veto powers in the UN, IMF, etc. and started respecting other country’s economic and polticial interests we would exhibit true leadership…

  132. 135 Michael
    November 21, 2008 at 19:39

    From Chicago!

    America believes in capital accumulation, its a great country but if he thinks that the whole world measures quality of life by material possessions, then his influence is next to detrimental! i lived on mere basic, and so do most people in the world! but i was happy than most American who have more than they possibly need! we need each other as human beings. Long live American, but i want non of your influence in my country

  133. 136 Perry O'Brien
    November 21, 2008 at 19:40

    Perry O’Brien, a veteran of Afghanistan from New York City.

    We say that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The last fifty years of U.S. leadership have shown that this axiom applies to entire nations as well as individuals.

  134. 137 Asag
    November 21, 2008 at 19:40

    In this whole debate as to whether America should continue as a super power, just keep in mind, the Romans were once world leaders before them, the Medes and persians and also the Greeks. So the US should keep that in mind. History has taught us that World dominance doesn’t last forever.

  135. 138 Wai Yan
    November 21, 2008 at 19:41

    America is morally and economically failing. It has a debt of more than 10 trillions. Might I remind you that nothing last forever. History teach us how the empires rise and fall. Whatever the type of the political system, doesn’t matter, just ideologies. What matter is the strong economy and military power. America future role will be one of the leading members of the world. Not a leader nor a follower. No more supreme power, America, no more.

  136. 139 Dan
    November 21, 2008 at 19:43

    If Russia or China achieves world dominance WHYS will no longer exist. People beat on the United States continuously but the strength of America is that people CAN continue to beat upon America and our dominance/leadership of the world.

  137. November 21, 2008 at 19:43

    Hi WHSY,

    I’m Azmeen from Malaysia.

    The reduction in US influence is just natural evolution. But for it to be replaced by China, India and Russia? That’s almost impossible.

    I’d say that the most likely next global superpower will be regional coalitions of countries; the EU would be the most probable candidate, and perhaps even ASEAN if they can get trade and political ties integrated better.

    I doubt such a coalition can be formed in the Middle East though, they have way too many issues that can be solved within two or even three generations. And the African Union won’t stand a chance either.

  138. 141 Nathan Mears
    November 21, 2008 at 19:44

    Why should America be the dominant power when it will not learn from those it likes to call its allies? Its health service is one of the worst in the developed world and its cars are amongst the most polluting. Last time I checked the characteristics of ‘sick’ and inefficient’ were not desirable characteristics in a leader.

  139. 142 Kenny In Florida
    November 21, 2008 at 19:44

    @ Peter, Bath UK

    LOL, you obviously have never been to Texas!

  140. 143 Necniv
    November 21, 2008 at 19:44

    American power will wane and strengthen over time. The USA has the advantage of reinventing itself over and over again. The United States should not want to dominate militarily but try to create a world where war is not an option. As the world continues to integrate, the ability for all countries to come together around common causes will grow.

    The Climate, Energy, Water are all global issues that will not need a dominant leader, but instead a global consensus that will lead us forward.

    China and India have the advantage of population but not in invention, the unique mix of capitalism with business and technology, or in the ability to make a quick change on a country-level basis. Of course, over time this can change.

    Russia is not going to go anywhere without commodity prices being high. Hopefully they will become like Japan or Germany — a very strong world power but not a superpower.

  141. 144 Renato Machado
    November 21, 2008 at 19:45

    What is true democracy? I think it only existed in ancient Greece. U.S. citizens are very proud of their democracy, but unfortunately they do not use it when they deal with foreign people.
    I am from Brazil and I know it very well. I witnessed the obliteration of Brazilian democracy in 1964 in a coup d´etat that was sponsered by USA.
    And today we can see what happens in Guantanamo. As I said before, US democracy is almost perfect, the problem is that Americans do not use it abroad.

  142. 145 Joey
    November 21, 2008 at 19:46

    America going forward…

    I’m a young American and I don’t believe America wanted to be the world’s leader in the first place
    This was a position we took after the end of WW2 which we reluctantly entered to help our British mates, etc.

    It’s hard to imagine that we would want to be the world’s leader, even though I hear Texans expressing this sentiment.

    Thank you

    Colorado, USA

  143. 146 David Gould
    November 21, 2008 at 19:46

    Hi all,

    It is about time the US dominance of the world ended as did the British dominance in the old days – very few positives came from it.
    Most Brits and Americans don’t understand how the rest of the World feels or works. There is, always, that feeling from outside that we have to either be with you or we are against you. There is never that in-between.

    I, truly, hope that President Elect Obama can start to empathise with the rest of the world and am thankful that President Bush is going as he has got to have been the worst leader that America has ever chosen – he has dragged the US and the whole world into ruin and has started wars that should never have happened and caused more animosity than ever existed before.

    Let us hope for a world where our technology and wealth can assist people throughout the world and alleviate poverty and promote understanding of all cultures and religions.


  144. 147 edward
    November 21, 2008 at 19:46

    The end of American dominance is unavoidable. Its the destiny of every world power. History shows that. Or have you thought that it was going to last for ever?? What about Brazil??? How come you forgot??? Energy, water and grains. three basic elements for the future world balance
    Thank you

  145. 148 viola
    November 21, 2008 at 19:47

    When you say you want to be a world power, do you want world domination or do you want to be the world’s police?

  146. 149 Ranjan
    November 21, 2008 at 19:47

    There are many things I do not like about the US. The stand they have on abortion, gay marriage, the appalling fact that so many Americans, especially children, have no health insurance, I could go on. These are, however, fringe issues, details that do not affect the larger picture. America has been and will be, a beacon of hope for the victims of the world. None of these victims says ” Oh please let the Norwegians come and save us, or the Germans, or the Italians”. And to my knowledge they have not yet called for the Chinese, Indians or Russians to save them from despots that still populate the third world.

    There are many things wrong with Americans, but the one thing that is so right is their compassion and the willingness to “do the right thing” regardless of the cost. Granted, not always, but a lot more often than any other “wanna-be” super-power. India might get there, China won’t and Russia is on it’s way back to the “good-old days” of the cold-war.

  147. November 21, 2008 at 19:47

    The biggest threat the world is facing at this moment is terrorism and I support USA to led the world and give end to terror from the world.

  148. 151 Vanhees Ben
    November 21, 2008 at 19:47

    Leading the world takes more than just economic leadership. China and India are of course economically on the rise, but I don’t think they have what it takes politically to lead the world. Does the USA have ? The day that Joe the plumber or Mike the Mechanic too can become gouvernor or Senator, yes. Right now, the word democracy is far too often used when the word plutocracy should be used. Another thing I would like to change to the US political system: I don’t understand how it was possible that Bush became president, while AL Gore had more votes. I also don’t understand how a country that treats its veterans in such a bad way can be a political inspiration to other countries. Finally, I just red about the number of children in the States that experienced “hunger” this year, and I felt very sad about it. Does that mean I don’t like the States or the Americans ? Certainly not !

    I prefer a world consisting of balanced powers without 1 clear leader !

    Ben Vanhees Belgium

  149. 152 Ellen
    November 21, 2008 at 19:48

    I think we need a balanced approach. We need to balance internal events and internaltional events. Too many of the people with money and power are externally focused to the detriment of our own citizens.

  150. 153 Joey
    November 21, 2008 at 19:48

    America going forward…

    I’m a young American and I don’t believe America wanted to be the world’s leader in the first place
    This was a position we took after the end of WW2 which we reluctantly entered to help our British mates, etc.

    It’s hard to imagine that we would want to be the world’s leader, even though I hear Texans expressing this sentiment.

    Thank you

    Colorado, USA

  151. 154 Jonathan
    November 21, 2008 at 19:48

    America is a VERY benign force in the world. We have no empire, we seize no slaves, we extract no tribute, we start very few wars. America doesn’t even seek to “dominate” the world, but just for fun, what country would do it better?

  152. 155 Al
    November 21, 2008 at 19:48

    USA, despite its problems, is far more fair and democratic than most other countries, especially when compared with China or Russia which are very militaristic, racist countries. If you think USA only acts out of their own selfish interests just wait until Russia or China become the world superpower! USA has made many mistakes but, usually, they were made from good intentions (bring democracy, save people, take out dictators, free trade, etc.) Of couse, as we all know, the way to hell is often paved with good intentions. But compare the past of Russia and China and the reasons for their actions, wars, treatment of POWs, treatment of minorities, treatment of women, etc. USA has had a lot of problems but nothing compared to genocides, forced abortions, forced starvations, invasions to gain territory, etc.

  153. 156 Colleen
    November 21, 2008 at 19:49

    Also the US needs a leader to step forward and tell individuals to stop over-consuming… our whole economy is based on evironmental destruction and unhealthy materialism… no country is going to be able to lead if the world becomes unihabitable for human beings!!

  154. 157 Beteseb F SHIBIKOM
    November 21, 2008 at 19:49

    Hi, Am Beteseb from Ethiopia. Am a student in the UK. Well, despite the fact that some people find this irritating, I have always thought that the world has always taken its shape b/c of actions of the few minority. The world is where it is today as a result of few, probably countable, measures taken by people and countries of the world. Again, since we don’t have an approporiate candidate to assume this role for now (am sorry but Russia, India and the China are very far from it as we are not talking about growing economy only here), I’ll have to welcome the US being the dominant power over the world. Finally, I would welcome an evil I know than a presumably angelic figure that I have never experienced. Tnx. Beteseb.

  155. 158 John Stetson from Austin Area
    November 21, 2008 at 19:49

    The changes that have taken place in the former Soviet Union and China have taken place in spite of the gov’ts, not because of them. Russia is currently doing it’s best to revert to the Soviet era. As long as the human rights inequities exist in both of them, the internal struggles, which will increase in severity and concentration, will keep them from occupying the position that the US has had on world affairs.

    I’m not sure about India.

    But it is certainly the case that the -world- economy is making change where it has never before been more than regional. So the circumstances that led to the establishment and perpetuation of US dominance are altered forever, I believe. Therefore, whatever takes place in the future will be substantially different that what has preceded.

    The only thing that won’t change substantiall, alas, is human nature. But it is both good and bad. We all need to make sure we promot the good.

  156. November 21, 2008 at 19:50

    If domination implies strength, my hope is that we begin showing intelligence instead by supporting such goals as improving the United Nations, the World Bank and surround the world with potential to grow as a world with everyone having equal rights. We are all human beings, not just American or European, etc

    God Bless Everyone–Tiny Tim/ The Christmas Carol

  157. 160 Charles, portland, or
    November 21, 2008 at 19:51

    Whether or not the US continues it’s dominance in the world will depend largely on our ability, or lack thereof, to learn from the mistakes we’ve made over the past century.

    Innovation is inextricably tied to education, and yet the public education system is in tatters thanks to policies extending back even prior to the Bush administration. How can our children grow up to be leaders in any arena when they can’t even speak or write their native language correctly? That is just one example.

    There is hope with the Obama administration that the U.S. will recover, but it will take years undo what’s been done and regain our forward momentum.

  158. 161 Ann
    November 21, 2008 at 19:53

    Humility is the defining characteristic of an unpretentious and modest person, someone who does not think that he or she is better or more important than others.

    Domination puts Institutional constraints on self-determination.

    I believe that leading with humility is the better way.

  159. 162 Jennifer
    November 21, 2008 at 19:53

    Re: Why do we need a world power. We need a world leader for peace.

    I am not sure that there needs to be a world leader. If we did have one, I doubt peace would be their agenda. It would be more likely be a case of them furthering their own agenda.

  160. 163 viola
    November 21, 2008 at 19:53

    My impression of Austin Texas is that it is a centre of a certain universe, How are you different and what can you tteach the rest of America and the world?

  161. 164 Hal
    November 21, 2008 at 19:53

    Your question invites Americans to display one of our most unattractive characteristics, our arrogance. Capitalism bested socialism as an economic system, but the economic crisis is the economic equivalent of the fall of the Berlin wall. The free market lacks a moral core. That’s not its purpose, and the question is how the world responds to Sarcozy’s call for the injection of ethics into our economic system.

  162. 165 James Q.
    November 21, 2008 at 19:54

    which country opens its arms to people of different nationalities?
    which country supports vulnerable and poor people worldwind
    which country has spoken on belhaf of the voiceless
    Which country has warmth and care for others
    America May see a down turn but I believe that will be short lived
    the EAGLE will continue to reign, The dragon has no way

  163. 166 Vitaly
    November 21, 2008 at 19:54


    It’s funny I think – in spite of all the western propaganda which is trying to frighten its consumers by russian brutality (almost a hour before the show began bbc had been telling the stories about evil russians, for instance), listeners are mostly frightened by China’s influence although.

    Such a fool citizens…

  164. 167 Pat Cosgrove
    November 21, 2008 at 19:54

    I believe that the outlook for the entire world improves immensely when president Obama addresses, with the cooperation and goodwill of the rest of the world, the disaster that the Bush years have been. As someone who travels internationally, i know most people around the world admire and respect the American people even though they hate our government.

  165. 168 Cecilia
    November 21, 2008 at 19:55

    I believe in America, and its ability to rally the world for good. In addition, I would like to see other countries help with some of the heavy lifting.

  166. 169 Solomon
    November 21, 2008 at 19:55

    It is understandable that the world is disappointed with the US’ leadership because of G. W. Bush’s blunder and misguided war in Iraq. Let us all remember the world with the US in the aftermath of 9/11. No other country has the economic, military, scientific power and most importantly the democratic ideal to substitute the US’ leadership. If President elect Obama could replace the gingoistic and unilateralist foreign policy of G. W. Bush by multilateralist and accomodationist foreign policy, then he will have the good will of the world.

  167. 170 Eric Setter
    November 21, 2008 at 19:55

    American dominance has not been perfect but what many enemies seem to forget is we do show tremendous restraint and have for many years. Occupational wars are always a problem because of our steadfast morals. If I’m not mistaken, throughout history most wars of occupation involved indiscriminate massacre of civilians and leadership and looting of all assets. We spend billions for more targeted weaponry and have striven for getting native citizens to govern while not taking over natural resources. I think that is very telling.

  168. 171 Tamara Downey
    November 21, 2008 at 19:55

    REFORM EDUCATION. Change starts at HOME.

  169. 172 Greg Allen (Portland, OR)
    November 21, 2008 at 19:56

    I’d like Obama — and all the nation’s leaders — to link free trade to human rights and a living wage.

  170. 173 ian givens
    November 21, 2008 at 19:56

    stop supporting isreal!

  171. 174 Tom D Ford
    November 21, 2008 at 19:57

    Here is a different view of Tibet and china:


    Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth

  172. 175 Jose
    November 21, 2008 at 19:58

    I don’t think of it as having “fear” of the U.S. not being the most powerful nation in the world. I think our “domination” is part of the reason why we are loosing our status in the world. We need to make sure we place our focus on back on making the U.S. the “example” not “the dominant force”.

  173. 176 Dan
    November 21, 2008 at 19:58

    Arrggghhh Leading with Humility!!???

    The Dali Lama has humility and is irrelevant!!!

  174. November 21, 2008 at 20:00

    I believe that the outlook for the entire world improves immensely when president Obama addresses, with the cooperation and goodwill of the rest of the world, the disaster that the Bush years have been. As someone who travels internationally, i know most people around the world admire and respect the American people even though they hate our government.

  175. November 21, 2008 at 20:02

    the new president would do the best by correcting the justice system to prosicute the corporate fraud & blatant criminality of our eliteS

  176. 179 gaston diang bum Yaounde Cameroon
    November 21, 2008 at 20:07

    we are living in an evolving world , It is just natural that US domination of the world is at twilight. Their foreigner policies are very aggressive toward the Arab world and hard toward Africa The US should keep the house in tact China and India are knocking at the door

  177. 180 Martha Palmer
    November 21, 2008 at 20:07

    responding to question: what is the single most important thing that Obama can do?

    Answer: invite Republicans (and other “opposing” thinkers) on to Air Force One. did you know that G.W. Bush NEVER invited a Democratic leader in to his home or his jet to have a chat? By breaking the Republican technique of disdaining to even have a dialogue with people who see things differently, the quality of the solutions is dramatically reduced….

    Thank you.

  178. 181 Wang Yiwei
    November 21, 2008 at 20:10

    I would not say that US has been dominating the world.

    The dominating force in the last 60 years was the democratic system that allows peaceful policy changes.

    I have to remind everyone that the rise of India, China or Russia was a direct result of these countries gradually adapting the democratic political system and market economy willingly or not.

    Before the majority of the countries get free, long may the democracies dominate!

    I would like to emphasize this to the Chinese or the Russian audience here: The illusion of catching up with a totalitarian nationalistic system stands as an illusion. Nazi Germany has already tried.

  179. 182 Jonathan
    November 21, 2008 at 20:13


    (You dangled the “economic cow” so I can’t resist) Don’t worry about the amnerican national debt; the important stat isn’t the debt amount but the debt as a portion of the gross domestic product. (A thousand dollar viisa bill is huge for a poor person, but no problem for a rich one.) By that measure, we’re in much better shape than most other countries. If you want to worry, worry about belgium….

  180. 183 Luise
    November 21, 2008 at 20:14

    @ troop:
    Why do you think it would be good for the USA to loose it’s world domination? do you think that having the worls domination means having more problems?

  181. 184 Kris
    November 21, 2008 at 20:14

    It is good to be discussing this issue. The thinking is , however flawed. If we are considering progress, we need to consider how we might advance the existing structures of governance. National governments exist to regulate populations and to achieve national objectives. We all recognise that many issues are not national anymore, the parlance we use today is globalisation.
    The concept of governance will have to grow from nationalism to globalism. To advance the lot of our global population requires all of us to be planning and instituting a global government. This is beond the UN which is a judicial body. The decline of the influence of the USA provides an opportunity for global objectives to be initiated.
    Thanks fo the oportunity for me to have my say. You have a good show.
    Cheers and regards, Kris.

  182. 185 Vitaly
    November 21, 2008 at 20:17

    @Pat in Austin

    /As someone who travels internationally, i know most people around the world admire and respect the American people/

    Are you sure the world is so small?

    Sorry, what for? May for they elected this government?

  183. 186 Oleg, Kazakhstan
    November 21, 2008 at 20:17

    I strongly believe that we cannot draw a correct conclusion on which of the countries would be a good or bad leader for the world. Basically, each country consists of people which views differ on many issues, if not on single one. Moreover, EVERY state acts, to a large degree, to maximise its own benefits and very often does it at the expense of other nations. So, probably, a better way is simply to accept this, not using ‘black and white’ divisions: US is a good country, while China, India, Russia etc. are bad ones. Our world is much more ‘colourful’ than we sometimes want to see it! I think we can make a huge progress in our development, if we make an effort to understand real reasons which lead to mistrust or misunderstanding between nations (based on language, cultural aspects, historical events or even movies).

  184. 187 Areghan IK
    November 21, 2008 at 20:22

    Rather than paint a picture of the United States as being under fire, we need to look at it from the perspective of pragmatism. It would have been foolhardy for anyone to predict that the status quo will always remain. Development is not the property of any one nation, and as other nations follow their own developmental imperatives, the degree to which they achieve their goals would in one way or the other compete with the United States, under a neorealist definition of international politics.

    Well, this does bring to fore the issues of hegemony and conflict of interests, this is where the United States would become relevant in determining the future of whatever framework that may emerge after the upheavals of the current crisis has abated. That the United States remains the leader in any emergent system is as significant as it’s brinkmanship in statecraft that she might deploy in the management of the inputs of the other relevant actors in the scheme of things.

    Europe and the G20 would seek to play active roles as we have observed over the past few days, even peripheral powers like Nigeria might jostle in on these issues giving her regional and economic relevance in the continent and what about Iran and the Australian continent?

    At the fore of all these issues though would be the President of the Unites States, and the breadth of fresh air he imbued in the international system would soon be saturated by the grime and grind of real politics.

    At this critical time in the history of a civilization that is about 500 years old in the making, the present generation witnesses the makings of a paradigm phenomena. The prediction for 2025 might not be viewed as gloomy, rather, the onus falls on the present crop of leadership at the international level to mould a framework that accomodates the basic neccessities relevant to enable the entirety of humanity make progress in this continuing drama of human existence.

    The United States would remain relevant in so far as she continues to champion those principles which become salient in an emergent system of civilization, the environment and climate, security management, an economic equilibrium that is balanced to the favor of all the economies of the globe (something like an international division of labor) which should subsequently lead to the eradication of poverty.

    President Obama has to prove that he is not a captive to “cling on” apostles of capitalism as reasonable folk the world over do not need technocrats and over payed analysts to tell them that the world needs a break after a tiring roller coaster ride. That though it felt good while it lasted, it had ultimately contributed to the multiplication of poverty in the world.

  185. 188 Luise
    November 21, 2008 at 20:23

    @ Wang Yiwei:
    I’m from Germany (democratic) and I don’t think that this is the best policy. Of course the Nazi-system was faaaaaaarrr worse but democracy dominating- well, democracy is no country and I think that WORLD DOMINATION always means a powerfull COUNTRY. But I agree with you on the topic that nationalistic policy is awfull. Everybody should be free.

  186. 189 Jonathan
    November 21, 2008 at 20:24

    The US really hasn’t sought to “dominate” the world. we don’t invade, occupy, and grab as much as we can, as global powers normally do. When other countries prosper, so does america; there’s room for everyone. We are rich by our own effort and ingenuity, and our freedom, not by stealing from anyone else.

    America doesn’t need to be the richest or the strongest country in the world. It just turned out that way. If another country overtakes us, which I very much doubt, I only hope it’s as benign and constructive as america.

    Needless to say, the last eight years don’t count.

  187. 190 Zoltron
    November 21, 2008 at 20:38

    Remember Paul Kennedy’s 1987 book “The Rise And Fall of The Great Powers” predicting A dominate Japan? He got his economics wrong and it didn’t happen. I still like his premise (and warning) , things can change. I agree with Dan above: UK @ France stood up @ quelled conflicts in Africa (I don’t recall A UN mandate either), JN contributes aid, India @ Pakistan UN peackeepers. What has China @ Russia done? Any local/popular aid organizations? Chian @ Russia bolck progress in the UN. All religions support compassion @ aid. Yep, China looks to be the next power- doesn’t look good though.

  188. November 21, 2008 at 20:52

    What the world need is a United Nation that does not give any members the power to veto to dominate the world. Since the end of the cold war we got more heated war. What has American done for the world?

  189. November 21, 2008 at 21:00

    I listened with great interest to today’s conversation from Austin. I do believe that the United States is losing power in the world. This has been in parellel with the United States losing our credibility in the world. Perhaps the most cogent comment I heard is our ability to change.

    To that end, if we are to recover our world leadership position, we need to start thinking more long term. We enjoyed a few decades of prosperity by selling the world our knowledge. We had a lot to sell, and the world was hungry for it. Our elitist assumption that because countries were poor that they were not smart has come back to bite us. As we sold our knowledge, we forgot that smart people, armed with knowledge, can accomplish great things.

    Concurrent with our knowledge transfer, we let our education system founder. Now the world is catching up in the knowledge area, while we are no longer producing as many fully educated young people as we could or should. To add insult to injury, we farmed out our manufacturing of nearly everything, so we no longer produce products that the emerging growth countries want to buy.

    So the answer, though not simple, is basic. We need to promote the increase in education in the areas of engineering, mathmatics, philosophy, medicine, and process improvement/business intelligence. It will take 16 years to reap the reward, but until we start, we will not win. We can couple this increase in education with the premise of leading by example (rather than directive), and by remembering, as we view fledgling democracies and see their stumbles, that the United States didn’t get it right immediately either.

    It is an ever evolving effort that takes global support of the emerging democracies.

  190. 193 Jola
    November 21, 2008 at 21:03

    I sleep safe with US as a world policeman. Sure – we love to hate police, but what would we do without police? I hope I shall never see russian corrupt to the core policeman or chinese policeman. So funny, everybody can see only the wrong foot of USA, yet they do SO MUCH good to the rest of the world.. Where would Africa be without the food grown in US ? and without the aid? Where will China be once americans stop buying their goods. Tzar Putin is not so ferocious once oil prices are down. All critics of US – close your eyes and imagine this planet with chinese or russians in charge. Once you do – you will look at US dofferently. By the way – I am NOT american. I am Polish

  191. 194 Amy In Austin
    November 21, 2008 at 22:53

    @ Viola :

    I was in the audience today. What universe do you think Austin perceives itself to be the center of? Austin is a very liberal city compared to the rest of Texas; it’s also more educated and well travelled than many of the cities in the US.

    Another point to ponder: Austin voted strongly Democratic in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. For those who think that the US President is a strong reflection of its people, I would remind them that Bush won by very small margins in both 2000 and 2004; Obama won by a slightly larger, but not overwhelming margin. I did not vote for Bush, but have found myself put on the defense by non-American friends as if I’d been his campaign manager. Why?

    I’ve shifted my focus from apologizing for our government’s actions to reaching out to people all around the world, trying to dispel the fear and ignorance that are used as tools against us by the powerful.

  192. 195 Peter Zimmermann
    November 21, 2008 at 22:58

    If Barak Obama wants to earn the respect of the people of the world he should never, on the world stage, utter the phrase “the American People” because for non-Americans it’s a derisible and contemptible expression that sums up all that is bad about America. If he aspires to be a WORLD leader then his rhetoric should be inclusive of the world and not hold American interests above the interests of all others. America has been a world leader for only 65 years and during that time she has stomped across the world stage, bullying and cajoling other nations to her will. In many countries American foreign policies support tyrannical stooges who oppress their own peoples in order to enter into mutually beneficial deals that allow the oppressor to live a life of dominance and excess whilst selling off the country’s natural resources for rock-bottom prices. It is laughable that many Americans see America as the world’s natural leader and are frightened at the thought of losing their power. China, India, Russia, Britain and the Arabs have rich cultural histories that span centuries rather than the piddling decades of American influence; for many oppressed people around the world life can only improve with the demise of American power. The robber Barons of Europe’s middle ages built castles (rather picturesque, admittedly) to provide security for their “way of life” and to protect their ill-gotten gains; similarly America has armed itself to the teeth to protect the “American way of life”. A moments thought will supply the obvious answer. The power base of the industrial / military complex should be reigned in and the trillions of dollars spent on defense should be reallocated to urban renewal. Then something amazing will happen: terrorism and Jihad will evaporate and the world can get on with the job of saving the planet from the catastrophic excesses of the “American way of life”.

  193. 196 Listener
    November 21, 2008 at 23:04

    America is the major gateway for the world.

  194. 197 Mike
    November 21, 2008 at 23:11

    A couple of comments from Oklahoma.

    1) It’s not been that many years ago when the USA was not the dominant power in the world – we shared that distinction with the Soviet Union and to a lesser extent China even then. We all survived, it was not the end of civilization as we know it. It was only the collapse of Russian communism that left the USA the last one standing, as it were. If other nations rise to the level of parity with the US in terms of military strength it only perhaps means a return to another cold war – it might be more stressful if unlike the Soviets a nouveau-powerhouse “doesn’t love their children too” and actually launches missiles. That action would most likely come from an extremist part of the world (which right now would mean an Islamic country, but may in the future be a different sort of extremism). Should this happen, even though the US would only have military parity…well, how many times can the US blow up the world with its remaining arsenal?

    2) For all of you whiners out there who have suffered so horribly at the hands of the ruthless Americans – WAKE UP!!! – do you think your lives would be better under the dominion of the Chinese?? Ask the people of Tibet just how much they love the Chinese. Or would you prefer the world dominated by a radical Islamic theocracy? Ask the women of Taliban Afghanistan how much they loved being chattel, or how much they love being the victims of an honor killing. Maybe you’d prefer the domination of the new Russian Federation – Bush, a tyrant?? what is Putin, a teddy bear?? Ask the people of Georgia what they think of Russian domination.

    For heaven’s sake, pull your heads out and open your eyes!!! American domination has been damned passive by comparison. Your wet-dream worlds cause me to mourn for my children and grand-children!!

  195. 198 rick
    November 21, 2008 at 23:21

    America can stay on top if they stop exporting their jobs and prosperity. Globalization needs a complete rethink. Just stop buying Chinese products and see what happens to their rising power. We in the west are handing it all to them on a silver platter. Boycot Walmart! Thats the answer.

  196. November 22, 2008 at 00:20


    There is plenty of “relative wealth” in Russia. They don’t live the fast paced consumer driven lives of the west. When you get right down to the individual and personal level they are as advanced as we are in the US. Would you have called the US of the early 20th century “3rd world”? they have schools, cities, markets, sewage and water systems, and electrical grids. No they do not have large SUVs, an intricate road system, house payments, car payments, credit card payments, 20 different video game systems that their children no longer use. They don’t have 24/7 marketing blitz that barrages them with compelling reasons to buy. They don’t have a fast food joint, pawn shop, and liquor store on every street corner. There is a strong bond among family.

    They are not running around in loin cloths trading dog’s teeth for wives. You do make me laugh. “Wealth is concentrated in the Oligarchs. What chance does the average Russian have to get rich? Almost none.” 80% of the wealth in the US is concentrated in 2% of the population. Good thing we don’t have any of those “Oligarchs” here. The very definition of “rich” is not the same.

    In this country we can make $100,000 a year. Of course we work 60 hours a week to do it. We never see our kids, and the traditions and moral compass is taught to them by the state at school. We work our but off for 30 years just to pay our house off, car off, and keep our heads above water. We provide this family we never enjoy a decent life. Then we retire, they throw us in a nursing home, and bring us pie once. Who can blame them. All them money we made is going to keep us in the home, and they have school, house, and transportation loans to keep up with. This is our definition of, “rich”.

  197. 200 Lee-Anne
    November 22, 2008 at 00:24

    @ George Waterston – If everything is for sale, all you need is money to be accepted in London.

    True. Most nations have “exceptions” to the immigration rules if you have enough money. In the UK, for example, you can qualify as an “investor” if you have £1,000,000, of which you invest invest £750,000 and apply for UK residency under that classification. Once you’ve lived in the UK for five years, one can apply for citizenship. There are a few hoops to go through, but it’s far easier than if you’re an unemployed plumber with a few hundred quid.

    The same general principles (if not exact rules) apply to Canada, the USA, and many other nations.

  198. 201 archibald in oregon
    November 22, 2008 at 00:31

    @ Jennifer
    ” I am not sure that there needs to be a world leader. If we did have one, I doubt peace would be their agenda. It would be more likely be a case of them furthering their own agenda.”

    That sounds a lot like the US., by “them” do you include the US or do you mean “other” people, like foreigners.

  199. 202 joe
    November 22, 2008 at 01:01

    dont worry about it, the first nuclear war will start within 20 years. probly india and pakistan, or iran and israel.china has a huge population of poor citizens , they will have real internal problems ,india will dronw underthe weight of their population, russia has a large amount of resources and should do well. i see the europeans having a better chance of taking a lead on the world stage.

  200. November 22, 2008 at 04:31

    Reading through this “the morning after, I got a bit depressed by most of the blog posts. The debate seemed to assume that, if the USA loses dominance, another single country will take its place. My reading of the report in question was simply that there will be a more even balance of power with no single country in a position to dominate without some kind of consensus. That may be too much to hope for, but surely that would be far healthier for all concerned.

    The other downside of this debate is the number of folks who used as their argument how benevolent the USA is and how evil Russia and China are. There is a grain of truth to this but at least two of the people using this argument have, in the past, also stated that US foreign policy is–and should be–based solely on what is good for the USA. I can’t argue against this, but surely they can’t have it both ways. The US is benevolent only in as far as American sees something “in it” for them.

  201. 204 Ron K
    November 22, 2008 at 06:04

    Oh my God!

    Let hope Obama with such huge and varied burdens can change things around after …

    8 Jnr. Bush years against terrorism after ground zero changed the world’s views about US dominance! Into Afganistan he went. And after Osama and his suicidal murderous gangs plus the Taliban. It wasn’t altogether wrong … But …

    What was wrong was next into Iraq and hanging of Saddam. I am no Muslim. But all the pretences and lies given to the UN and proclaimation to US’s EU allies (and so to the world too) that, “God asked me to do it” is unimaginable hypocracy of proportions beyond believe from such high level and platform. And it was too like unilaterally thrusting he’s own ‘brand’ of absolutely free-wheeling democracy into Afgans, Iraqis and the rest of the world as they may only want simple lives.

    Who is to say your way is the BEST way? That’s Hypocratic Democracy of the Jnr Bush era which the whole world is now sighing in relief that it be over very soon. As such shortcut means to and end must end.

    The sub-prime mortgage anf toxic products all propelled during the Jnr. Bush years too. Through extremely low bank deposits interest rates. And traditional Commercial banks turning into Investments Banks too for luring frustrated and ‘lost’ despondent depositors into very high risk and complex new products. Low interest for mortgage upfront and manupilated higher later caused the sub-prime. That’s the extreme dowside Nuts & Bolts of too free unregulated business democracy Jnr. never understood about to this day!

    A theoritician in manyways. Even to war and the encompassing reasons for it too.

    American dominance must not be by supremacy through impossing or force of military might nor vague justifcations in cruelties like in Guantanamo Bay detention camp w/o sane reasons or timelines. Robbing of any person’s God given life’s time on earth is wrong and so it is sinful.

    Justification of other lives to be sacrificed for the goodness sake the future may seem honourable. But in modern warfare, reality is that the Command-in–Chief goes to war by proxy and face no great dangers himself! Unlike the Robinhoods and great generals of the sword and spears era.

    Shame to any leader who leads his nation to bring peace to the world through bloodshed. It is said that, A bully is actually the weakling”. The patience on the long hard road like the tortoise who won the race from the over confident hare is the better and certain way to lasting world peace.

    I am from a teenee island in the sun just some 80 miles (135 Km) north of the equator in South East Asia whose only resource are us, our people. Can a ‘small’ boy teach ‘big’ boy a thing or two what is better in the present world of size, power and military might?

  202. 205 ryan
    November 22, 2008 at 07:11

    Where is the European Union in all this? America assumed a leadership role after WWII because it had to; Europe was shattered. With American help, western Europe, and now, to a lesser extent, eastern Europe have re-emerged economically. It’s time for Europe to take its turn and pay its share of the costs of handling rogue states and terrorist sponsors like Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Taliban and North Korea.

    While some people might not like America’s answers – invading Iraq for example – I don’t see many solutions coming from Europe, even though Europe is collectively far more populous and has a much larger economy than the U.S. France took a leading role in the Georgia matter; maybe that will be the beginning of Europe finally taking care of itself. For all those that think America is too arrogant, its time to stand up and put your own money and your own citizens’ lives on the line.

  203. 206 Kwami
    November 22, 2008 at 09:32

    i wonder why americans are jittery about this whole super power status thing. what they need to understand is the world was not born of one nation and its a natural order. the system alway finds a way to refresh its self. with humility i would accept the end of american dominance.

  204. 207 lux-man pmii
    November 22, 2008 at 12:11

    I think US will be destroying by All moslem people in the word ‘couse US army was destroyed All Moslem Country like Afganistan,Iraq and the other Moslem Country Are you Scare with me….?

  205. 208 Jennifer
    November 22, 2008 at 13:34

    @ Archibald

    My statement applies to everyone; everywhere. Power goes to people’s heads. For all of the problems we have here; I always remember it could be worse.

    @ Thea Winter

    You mentioned doing research before you voted. Visit this website: http://www.howobamagotelected.com. Hope this is allowed. If not, please give Thea my email address. I think she would find the website interesting. 🙂 Thank you.

  206. 209 errylatif
    November 22, 2008 at 13:37

    World needs a new balance, in accordance with the principles of globalization, from the initial balance is a total reform of the UN, reform will be difficult to realize because of the veto, which owned the five permanent member countries of the UN Security Council.

    So far, the fifth of the country is not willing to remove the rights of the very special. Five countries are the owners of the veto power the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia and China.

    “How do we reform if they do not want to revoke the rights veto”

    Remember! The world does not belong to holders of the 5 veto in the UN.

  207. 210 natalie sara
    November 22, 2008 at 15:04

    china has been trying to establish their superpower status for a period of time now. alot with soft power since military tactics against taiwan would make relations with the US steep.

    and US isn’t as wealthy as they seem. the chinese have been collecting a huge foreign exchange reserve thanks to them and been lending the americans money. america’s weakening power is seen through the urgency to pressure china to appreciate their currency.

    the hegemony of power would be no more but i wonder whether a competition for it would spark total disaster for the world all over.

  208. 211 SHAIK SiS from Singapore
    November 22, 2008 at 18:23

    Do you want an end to US domination?… As is the topic, the straight forward answer would be a strong yesss…rather be it the end of any form of domination by any other country over others. The fall of US domination should reverberate as far to the so called UN(Though it acts as subordinate to the white house most of the times) to reshuffle its policies which doesn’t suit to this contemporary world.Every country has its own issues to take care of either it is India,China or Russia.

    Increasingly powerful role will of course make any country to intemperate its actual role as US doing now especially in the case of China and Russia.

    Let us have a world where UN is the most powerful and has more active role with every country’s equal rights and contribution on all aspects of helping the other nations.

  209. 212 viola
    November 22, 2008 at 18:56

    I don’t suppose it matters which country is exercising power, which every single country is to whatever degree it can. What matters is whether that power is exercised for good rather than evil purposes. And that requires lots of thought, knowledge, and an open mind. Most people have an opinion about the United States that totally colors any opinion they form about any issue, including this one, that prevents them actually considering the question in a thoughtful way. Too bad. It is a good question.

    I, personally, would not count the Americans out just yet. Though not perfect–what country is?–they may once more expand the American Dream of equality of opportunity for everyone.


  210. 213 David Myers
    November 22, 2008 at 19:44

    Who loves the Americans? or as David Bowie once sung “I’m afraid of Americans”
    He was not wrong neither.The Americans have ruined everything they have meddled with. What started out as a revolution against the Crown, turned into a moloch, a monster which has never ceased to stamp its own kind of democracy on anyone who stand in their way. We in Germany have felt this twice in the last century, the worst being at the end of WW2. Not only did the US want to turn us into a agricultural state, no!, they even wanted to make sure that we never could rear our “ugly” heads ever again or even walk upright. There was to be a ban on higher education, apart from that which they thought was “good” for us, brainwashing of children was another item in their catalogue of “good deeds” for the German people, whom they defeated and humiliated in front of the whole World. We were not all in the SS or Gestapo, neither were we all in the NSDAP, but the Americans have always maintained that “a good German is a dead German”. My Mother suffered under the American rule in Hannover, food was scarce, there were the people from Schlesien and Ostpreussen here as well, but no food! Where were our “freinds” from America? When the British took over the job things got better, the food started to come, the Brits had little but they shared it just the same. Here is the difference of mentalities at work, we Europeans think different to the Amis, and as they made sure we all thought the same way as they did what did they do? Yep, we turned into money grabbing consumers, why? Before the war we lived on our wages and what one could save was put to aside, now we have Christmas from September until December, Easter from January until April, great! I don’t want to live like the Amis. The old saying “Yanks go home” is long over due, we have had enough of them and their wars.

  211. November 22, 2008 at 21:39

    Agree with Peter Liu. What we need most is a world where every country and every citizen is hitched to the UN Charter, not just in words, but also in deeds. It ought to be taught to every student in every school throughout the world. It was a fine product from WWII, the mother of all wars which sowed death and destruction across continents. Yet how many countries adhere to its fine words? Hardly any. Sorry to say, USA perhaps leads the pack of defractors, whose First Lady Eleanor Roosvelt was its prime mover. For starters, the veto power restricted to the so-called Big Five, the outcome of victor’s justice, is long outmoded and should be replaced by a system of universal justice by the many who constitute the UN Security Council.

  212. 215 Bryan
    November 22, 2008 at 22:18

    David Myers,

    Hitler’s Germany was directly responsible for the devastation of Europe, the deaths of 55 million people and the near-annihilation of the Jews of Europe. What did you expect Americans to do at the time – shower you with gifts and tell you how wonderful you were? Obviously the Allies had to make sure you weren’t going to gear up for a rep[eat performance.

    You should thank your lucky stars you weren’t in the east, under the Soviets with their communist idiocy. And I’m sure you know about the blockade of Berlin. You might like to remind yourself who was instrumental in breaking that blockade and who was the first to airlift in supplies. Yes, the despised Americans.

  213. 216 viola
    November 23, 2008 at 00:47

    @David Myers

    It’s really interesting all the versions of historical events you get when you start asking questions. At least one German-born Canadian I know personally didn’t even know that Germany declared war on the U.S. before the U.S. would enter the war against Germany.

    Read the Truman papers. You’ll get a diferent perspective.

  214. 217 Roberto
    November 23, 2008 at 01:19

    RE “” i know most people around the world admire and respect the American people even though they hate our government. “”

    ——— It appears other peoples share the same disconnect gene as Americans.

    Have any of these people consider it’s Americans electing the government Americans and foreigners claim to hate?

  215. 218 Alexadria
    November 23, 2008 at 04:42

    Having grown up in America and England I’m amazed the world allowed America to lead it as long as they have.

    The American government is elected by the American people who as a whole are a bunch of simple minded, overly religious bumpkins who’s greatest fear is being reduced to the level of their global peers – the people living in the rural villages in China and India the previous American commentators disparaged.

    Simple minded people have NO business dominating global affairs, they need to be counter balanced. China and Russia are both most concerned with regional power, hense their oppression of their neighbours, not unlike how the US oppresses the nations of central and south America.

    The emerging powers however, are not going to engage in military misadventures to impose their version of free-market crapitalism and evangelize Christianity to the four corners of the globe, which will be an improvement over what the world has now.

  216. 219 Emile Barre
    November 23, 2008 at 15:05

    Rome was not built in a day and neither did it last forever nor all the Romes that followed including USA.

  217. 220 Andrew Hagan
    November 23, 2008 at 21:37

    The U.S. power wheel stems only as far as they play the markets wielding their nuclear power as collateral against the world. Were the rest of the world to use the power of Mutually Assured Destruction the market value for such power would diminish and the market would no longer be ruled by the power of destruction but rather the power of progress.
    I love America, I love the way American terrorism is causing the global economy to focus on the African nation to build upon its own economic input into the international markets and hopefully aid the developed nations to stop focus on their own economic development and begin to bring about a global unity for aid.

    Like i said, I love this great nuclear power of America, I love how it uses its weapons of mass destruction as collateral against the world, but i especially love how this nuclear power takes president over developmental aid….

    GO AMERICA!!!!!

  218. 221 Tom (of Melbourne)
    November 24, 2008 at 02:56

    As an ethnic Chinese living in the free world, I would much prefer the status quo with the US dominating world affairs than autocratic ones like Russia and China.

    Despite its apparent decline over the past 8 years, the US is still far and away the most advanced, wealthy and liberal country on earth. Most importantly, and in contrast to Russia and China, it continues to be a magnet of human talents and creativity. All these will ensure US dominance for many decades to come.

  219. November 24, 2008 at 14:49

    Personally, the idea of China becoming a world power is a great one. America has lost its moral compass and cannot preach democracy and freedom if it represses alternative political parties at home. America also has allowed many forms of immorality to flourish in its borders. China has never committed acts of aggression and has high moral standards.

  220. November 24, 2008 at 16:57

    Great Empires rise and Great Empires fall! This is a fact and is the clear case throughout the world’s history.
    Many commentators who are wiser, have studied this subject in greater depth and over a considerably longer time than all of us here, are coming to the opinion that America is reaching it’s “Death Knell.”
    They firmly believe if America carries upon its current course its fall will be cataclysmic, and with devastating consequences for the nation and its people, for years to come. Even if it is recovers to a certain extent, it will never, ever be the same as it was before. The economic powerhouse and political master of the world will be just a faded memory.
    The wanton and selfish greed as exhibited by all those who are responsible for quite possibly the greatest recession/depression in its entire history is unbelievable! Of course they couldn’t care less for the USA’s unceremonious demise, as long as they can make a buck, shekel or profit once more from it in anyway.
    Who killed Caesar, the marauding hordes of Huns and Vandals who eventually ransacked Rome, no it was his closest friends and associates, which sowed the eventual seeds of the Roman Empire’s destruction.
    It is always those on the inside who destroy the foundations from within, so the whole thing implodes upon itself. Even before this unprecedented situation others saw the potential for disaster, such is the propensity for the USA to think of nobody beyond itself, even when it is supposedly acting in benevolent ways, there must always be a payback or a forfeit to pay of some kind. America seems incapable of truly displaying what could safely be interpreted as being truly altruistic behaviour, or acting in an unselfish manner at all.
    America’s fall will be dramatic, but probably slow and exceedingly painful overtime, unless they choose to take a different path and enter into a different mindset other than that which convinces them that they are the sole proprietors of the planet and keepers of the keys to the kingdom of overindulgence and bloated self-aggrandisement.

  221. 225 Jens
    November 24, 2008 at 22:11


    you must be kidding about china and not having commited any act of aggresion and high moral standarts. How about Tibet and Taiwan?????uhhhhh peaceful that was and still is. how about the draconian way they move people around when they think it is justified, how about freedom of speech, work camps etc. how about the words melanin and high moral in one scentence, or somalia……

    i think you should have a look at how china conducts it’s business. these guys are as brutal as one can be.

  222. November 25, 2008 at 00:57


    I know we haven’t exactly seen eye to eye on various topics and subjects for debate on the blog. Such is the nature of the beast and I wouldn’t have it any other way really.
    But I want to personally thank you for your much appreciated response. I am always thankful in these instances, but it means so much more when some just comes out with it and I was very but also pleasantly surprised that it came from an adversary in a manner of speaking.
    Thank you once again. And I look forward to sparring with you on another occasion, unless we suddenly start agreeing with one another for some bizarre reason. Stranger things have happened!

  223. 227 John
    November 25, 2008 at 01:32

    As a Canadian, I do not want to see too much of a decline in US power. The Americans made two poor voting decisions (G. W. Bush). Bush decided to violate international law for the armies of Iraq and Afghanistan did not attack the USA on Sept. 11th, it was a terrorist organization. Hopefully the economy and reputation of the USA hasn’t slipped so much as to prevent redemption.

    If the US economy falls so will the Canadian economy because the USA is Canada’s number one trading partner. Also, Canadian culture is quite similar to northern US culture. Canada overall has good relationships with most countries though recently these have most likely been somewhat dwindling due to our involvement in Afghanistan.

    I do not want to see Russia in power because of how they treat their people and their ideologies. If Russia gets in power economic turmoil will occur because of their unstable government and economy with their currency tied to oil which is running out.

    China is also not ideal because they ignore their pollution, human rights, and they are not a democratic country. I live in Vancouver, Canada and parts of our province (similar to a state) of British Columbia that are completely unpopulated are actually receiving pollution from China right over the pacific ocean. Without someone telling them not to, the aforementioned problem could get worse. Their government also has a history of slaughtering anyone who opposes their government. They lack many rights such as freedom of speech and so on.

    India like China lacks on some of the human rights hough it makes less of a habit of killing its own people. If they get control of their problems such as starvation they might actually turn out to be a decent world power. Many businesses such as Microsoft have locations in India to handle things like technical support. They were also once part of the British Empire thus they share many of the views of the western nations. England’s right to “Civilize,” India is disputable though that is a whole different issue and this statement will probably be scoured upon by many as this is the British Broadcasting Company.

    In conclusion, out of China, India, and Russia, India would be my first choice as a Canadian is that the next word power though the USA remaining the leader would be the best. All of this however, was my subjective point of view.

  224. 228 Hudson Peters
    November 25, 2008 at 19:42

    I believe that any sort of “world domination” by any one country, religion, or person for that matter, is not the way to fix anything in this world. The only true answers to solve the world’s many, many delimmas are love and peace. Any conflict, war, or troubled time can at least start to be healed with either of these two simple, simple actions. Love someone, care for a nation. War is not the answer to anything, ever. John Lennon had it right, “All we are saying, is give Peace a chance.”

  225. November 26, 2008 at 10:09

    the USA and European domination is still how much people they can kill in a strike and just money(military and cash)…i just pray we here dont lose our domination as the super power of positive reasoning.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: