10 signs the U.S. is losing its Western influence

[RottenWillow]

The US is the undisputed leader in hard power.

No other nation has the ability to wage long wars, protracted conflicts like the US can. No other nation has anywhere near the military capability and to build similar capability would take decades and cost trillions.

The Us has been blighted by poor leadership, the last prez didn't know how to spell diplomacy or how to use the US's enormous soft power potential. The current prez hasn't lived up to his own hype, at least not yet.

In terms of a numbers game China and India are going to be top dog eventually, but not because they are better/smarter just because they are huge.

Both of these countries have enormous underlying social problems and fundamental structural problems with their governments and their inability to combat their official corruption.

What the US needs to DO is not be the sherrif/dominator/top dog/you are with us or against us guy. Work more closely with allies, rely more on diplomacy and soft power. Economic turn around will happen, it just takes time.

b0und (2 cents)

LMAO! Dude we don't either. We wage war with Chinese loans. Washington can wage protracted wars because it still has relatively good credit.


As for the "doom and gloom" characterization, I don't see those facts as pointing to anything other than natural global power shifts. It's not "bad". It's just natural. It's part of the life cycle.

 

[Lancer55]

And yet we haven't prevailed in any of these conflicts since WWII, and that one couldn't have been done without the Soviets.

We need to use the full power of our military on afghanistan thatd end the war quick like the first gulf war then alot of people wouldn't be talking shit and brazil would do as its told ECT ECT. Right now most countries hate the US of A and/or Laugh at us cause they think we are a joke (Obaaaaaaama) thatd fix some things not sure about copper and iron tho? lol.

 

[PICK3]

And yet we haven't prevailed in any of these conflicts since WWII, and that one couldn't have been done without the Soviets.

We fight wars that we're afraid to win with the prime objective being minimizing collateral damage.

 

[calveless wonder]

Has this moron even been to these countries? I have and kids still shit in the streets, cows room neighborhoods, toilets are for the rich, corruptin & violence is everywhere, govt freedoms are nowhere near our levels, people fear the army & cops and healthy drinking water doesn't exist.

When the big line outside the us embassy to get visas to come here starts getting shorter - then we'll have probs. I don't forsee that happening anytime soon.

c

I actually agree with this. Just because these countries are growing and a few individuals have power or money, doesn't mean the countries itself as a whole are progressing.The amount of corruption and divide between rich and poor will always essentially cap the ability of a country to grow. That type of divide will always result in political unrest, war, and a general difficulty in a country growing effectively. This is the case in a large portion of south america, and that's why they've had so many economic troubles for years. Brazil has obviously become quite influential in the economic sector, but people forget that their currency not too long ago was nearly WORTHLESS. It was a victim of the worst case of inflation of any country. A country with a generally happy and civilized society, with a true middle class, will always be able to maximize it's economic resources in a better manner. So while growth can still occur, it'll never realize the potential it would have in a more balanced and politically stable society.




Far as the article itself, it basically makes the same point over and over again. In all the instances it used, there was one common factor. These countries have valuable natural resources.
The US doesn't.

Which is not a shock. None of this is. The US is nearly entirely service based as an economy, especially as an international force. We purchase everything that other countries produce in order to sustain ourselves. It's not hard to see why this is an issue and has been for quite some time.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I actually agree with this. Just because these countries are growing and a few individuals have power or money, doesn't mean the countries itself as a whole are progressing.The amount of corruption and divide between rich and poor will always essentially cap the ability of a country to grow. That type of divide will always result in political unrest, war, and a general difficulty in a country growing effectively. This is the case in a large portion of south america, and that's why they've had so many economic troubles for years. Brazil has obviously become quite influential in the economic sector, but people forget that their currency not too long ago was nearly WORTHLESS. It was a victim of the worst case of inflation of any country. A country with a generally happy and civilized society, with a true middle class, will always be able to maximize it's economic resources in a better manner. So while growth can still occur, it'll never realize the potential it would have in a more balanced and politically stable society.




Far as the article itself, it basically makes the same point over and over again. In all the instances it used, there was one common factor. These countries have valuable natural resources.
The US doesn't.

Which is not a shock. None of this is. The US is nearly entirely service based as an economy, especially as an international force. We purchase everything that other countries produce in order to sustain ourselves. It's not hard to see why this is an issue and has been for quite some time.

Actually the U.S. does have those, but we "choose" not to use them for....political reasons.

 

[stosstruppe]

As for the "doom and gloom" characterization, I don't see those facts as pointing to anything other than natural global power shifts. It's not "bad". It's just natural. It's part of the life cycle.

On reflection, recalling the end result of previous empires I'm inclined to concede my previous point & agree with that.

I just don't agree with the main thrust of the article highlighting purely the perceived material "shortfalls" of the USA as the de facto variable contributing to said country's diminishing "influence".

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

On reflection, recalling the end result of previous empires I'm inclined to concede my previous point & agree with that.

I just don't agree with the main thrust of the article highlighting purely the perceived material "shortfalls" of the USA as the de facto variable contributing to said country's diminishing "influence".

It only said it was one of a few reasons. Yeah the article ain't exactly the most objective criticism but it probably wasn't supposed to be either lol.

 

[b0und]

LMAO! Dude we don't either. We wage war with Chinese loans. Washington can wage protracted wars because it still has relatively good credit.

?

Yes, so? I don't disagree that it's Chinese bond purchases financing US government debt. That hasn't stopped the US from continuing it's protracted and futile wars. The hard power to wage those wars is still the US' sole ability. A lot of countries have money/or good credit the ability to raise finance if needed. Only the US has the military capability.

As for the "doom and gloom" characterization, I don't see those facts as pointing to anything other than natural global power shifts. It's not "bad". It's just natural. It's part of the life cycle.

From the news I am getting down here, there seems to be a lot of doom and gloom coming out of the US, much more than necessary I think.










b0und (---)

 

[mrplunkey]

?
From the news I am getting down here, there seems to be a lot of doom and gloom coming out of the US, much more than necessary I think.

b0und (---)

We'll have a mini-recovery, but US people just need to accept the fact that their standard of living is going to retreat quite a bit over the next few decades.

We lack the fortitude to do what has to be done. So instead, we're going to choose the slow, painful route.

 

[javaguru]

We'll have a mini-recovery, but US people just need to accept the fact that their standard of living is going to retreat quite a bit over the next few decades.

We lack the fortitude to do what has to be done. So instead, we're going to choose the slow, painful route.

Europe 2.0?