US Power Will Decline Under Trump, Says Futurist Who Predicted Soviet Collapse

[VCheng]

How?

It was one of the root causes that led to WW2.

 

[Desertfalcon]

It was one of the root causes that led to WW2.

Well, first of all, I would not call myself an isolationist, as in WW2, we were attacked by Japan and Hitler declared war on us, so I have no problem in going to war against them, but I don't know how America could have stopped the rise of Nazism or the Japanese Empire, by being interventionist. Besides, it was Europe's weakness, vacillation, and appeasement of Hitler, that was what led to war. Not America's absence from Europe.

 

[VCheng]

Well, first of all, I would not call myself an isolationist, as in WW2, we were attacked by Japan and Hitler declared war on us, so I have no problem in going to war against them, but I don't know how America could have stopped the rise of Nazism or the Japanese Empire, by being interventionist. Besides, it was Europe's weakness, vacillation, and appeasement of Hitler, that was what led to war. Not America's absence from Europe.

I was referring to the Neutrality Act of 1937, which contributed to British appeasement and Axis belligerence, knowing that USA would not get involved. International geopolitics can be quite complex, more so in today's world, than ever.

 

[My-Analogous]

US in decline?

Overseas influence - yes
Power - not too soon

If you want to be a superpower, then you have these three things in your bag

1. Economy
2. Military hardware(which need technology and it come from money)
3. Diplomacy

US economy is in bad shape since ten year and we hardly seen any growth in it, Due to trump factor diplomacy is also hurt badly. The only thing US currently have is Military hardware but it wouldn't take much long that other country provide alternative products of same standard, because money is not much pumping in technology and it was before and other countries investment on research increase greatly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending

 

[gambit]

...we should stay out of other countries' business and not meddle in their internal affairs.

In principles -- Yes.

But in reality, the answer cannot be 'No'.

Not because we should meddle in the internal affairs of other countries, but because often circumstances compelled US to enter into their internal affairs and in order to protect our interests, we ended up meddling to some degrees.

Take Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers, for example. Circumstances involving the Barbary pirates seizing American ships and demanding tributes from the US compelled such an entanglement. The US ended up being a tributary state until a US navy became powerful enough to defeat the Barbary States. Jefferson was against paying tribute and from that refusal -- in my opinion -- arguably began the seed of American reluctant interests in the internal affairs of countries that have some form of relationship to the US.

Well, first of all, I would not call myself an isolationist, as in WW2, we were attacked by Japan and Hitler declared war on us, so I have no problem in going to war against them, but I don't know how America could have stopped the rise of Nazism or the Japanese Empire, by being interventionist. Besides, it was Europe's weakness, vacillation, and appeasement of Hitler, that was what led to war. Not America's absence from Europe.

There are many ways to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries. To start off, you can meddle in their external affairs.

Take Imperial Japan, for example. The US was concerned about Japanese horrific abuse of the Chinese by the Quantung Army. Strictly speaking, the US should have said nothing. But the US actually offered Imperial Japan a deal: The US will recognize Japan's claim to Manchuria in return for Japan to stop her expansion in China.

That is meddling. Not just of one but of two countries. One country too weak to offer any defense to outsiders determining its fate, and one powerful enough to challenge the navies of the world's most powerful countries.

 

[abc123xyx]

last 7-8 days i be getting into this prediction stuff .....profeciencies as people know....
and actually think to start a thread on it...
profeciencies by nostradomas , book of revelation ,

will it be ok to start a thread on such topics...?

 

[Desertfalcon]

I was referring to the Neutrality Act of 1937, which contributed to British appeasement and Axis belligerence, knowing that USA would not get involved. International geopolitics can be quite complex, more so in today's world, than ever.

I think you mean the Neutrality Act of 1939. The 1937 Act had to do with Spain. In any event, what contributed to British appeasement was British memoires of the carnage of WW1 as well as British internal politics. Had the allies not been so ghastly to Germany after WW1, they wouldn't have had a Hitler to deal with in any event.

In principles -- Yes.

But in reality, the answer cannot be 'No'.

Not because we should meddle in the internal affairs of other countries, but because often circumstances compelled US to enter into their internal affairs and in order to protect our interests, we ended up meddling to some degrees.

Take Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers, for example. Circumstances involving the Barbary pirates seizing American ships and demanding tributes from the US compelled such an entanglement. The US ended up being a tributary state until a US navy became powerful enough to defeat the Barbary States. Jefferson was against paying tribute and from that refusal -- in my opinion -- arguably began the seed of American reluctant interests in the internal affairs of countries that have some form of relationship to the US.

But that is specifically what I am not talking about. We were attacked by those pirates. Americans were seized. We should have intervened there.

Take Imperial Japan, for example. The US was concerned about Japanese horrific abuse of the Chinese by the Quantung Army. Strictly speaking, the US should have said nothing. But the US actually offered Imperial Japan a deal: The US will recognize Japan's claim to Manchuria in return for Japan to stop her expansion in China.

That is meddling. Not just of one but of two countries. One country too weak to offer any defense to outsiders determining its fate, and one powerful enough to challenge the navies of the world's most powerful countries.

Again, that is not what I am talking about. What I am talking about are things like sending troops into Cuba and conquering the Philippines on trumped up justifications. Sending troops into Nicaragua, numerous times, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Honduras, seizing a province of Colombia which become Panama, so we could build a canal there. That is just part of where we actually sent in troops and took over governments that were not doing what we wished. None were threats to us. We had no business there. And that was all before WW2. I won't even get into the numerous miscalculations we made during the Cold War, but now, we intervene in Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lybia, etc. How's that worked out for us?

The problem is we Americans have been conditioned to think we are the world's policeman, that we have some sort of magic "right" to tell other countries how to order themselves, which besides being immoral, would be easier to swallow except....we. keep. getting. it. wrong!

But my deeper objection is what I mentioned before; this is NOT what we were intended to be, NOT what our Founders wanted. We have trillions in debt, we can't balance our budget, fix our cities, educate our kids, care for the poor, etc. We need to stop this nonsense and get back to our roots that men like Thomas Jefferson and Washington spoke of.

 

[VCheng]

I think you mean the Neutrality Act of 1939. The 1937 Act had to do with Spain. In any event, what contributed to British appeasement was British memoires of the carnage of WW1 as well as British internal politics. Had the allies not been so ghastly to Germany after WW1, they wouldn't have had a Hitler to deal with in any event.

There were several acts, but the point to be made is that isolationism has its own costs, and is not as simple as one would imagine:

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/neutrality-acts

 

[Desertfalcon]

There were several acts, but the point to be made is that isolationism has its own costs, and is not as simple as one would imagine:

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/neutrality-acts

Well, like I said, and made the point to Gambit, I am not an isolationist. The problem though, is that that is always the label fixed to anyone in America who questions whether we should intervene in country "x". The interventionist flip side is that we are so fixated in our WW2 mindset that, every bad guy we are challenged by, we turn into a 'Hitler', and every reluctance to intervention becomes a 'Munich appeasement'.

 

[Shajida Khan]

Those "grinding" sanctions effected Pakistan more then India. Ever heard of Pressler amendment? Isnt it ironic that NSG which was made just after the so called "smiling Buddha" test of 1974 by India, America is hell bend to let India into its folds. That love affair is always been there sunshine. You just have to smell the coffee. I have already given you the example of JFK threatening Ayub Khan not to open western front in Kashmir while India was getting the tonking by Chinese on eastern front. With regards to USAID, per capita is irrelevant considering that most of time of its existence, India has been part of Soviet block, and despite that it manage to mint AID from US. Another strange anomaly.

If you are moaning about Punjab, what you lot were doing in east Pakistan way before that ? How far in history you want to go? India behavior is nothing short of animal tbh, if the likes of you justify killing of more the 50K Pakistani citizens in different terrorist activities on the streets of Pakistan, as payback. We atleast have some mortal and ethics.

Remember this, when you have control over geopolitics, you can trade on your terms. As for Americans, they have been focusing on Pacific to encircle China for years, infact Obama's "Asia pivot" strategy was all about that. but it is all is crumbling down now as Pacific nations simply dont want to be part of this non sense. Philippines is a classic example of this. Trump has nominated governor of Iowa as the new Chinese ambassador who happen to be personal friend of Xi. Being a businessman all trump want is trade concessions from China and in return he will roll up this Asia pivot non sense. Which in turn will make utility of states like India more or less redundant who were marketing themselves as the bulwark against Chinese expansion.

Certainly they did affect Pakistan more. You know why, don't you? Because Pakistan was much more reliant on US back then. You missed the entire "fear of communism" and now "fear of China" part, did't you? America's entire diplomacy on India is based on keeping India from inclining towards perceived US 'enemies'. Back then it was Russia/USSR, now it is China. I have already told you, US sent the entire USS Enterprise fleet to defend east Pakistan in 71. Also, they were deathly worried about India's attack on Western front. This was seen in the declassified conversation between Kissinger and Nixon.

As far as terrorism go, remember who started it. Remember who still calls terrorist in Kashmir as 'Freedom Fighters'? Who sent terrorists to Mumbai. If you play with fire, expect to get burnt sometimes. Also, when you brand someone as your mortal enemy, where does the question of morality comes from? You were always fighting with gloves off to begin with.

And I find it really funny that you bring Trump and China in this discussion. Remember, only president/president-elect till date to question One China policy is Trump. His foreign and especially military policy is yet to be seen. And, equally funny is the fact that same Obama who had launched pivot to pacific rushed to reaffirm US's stance on 'One China' policy. If any one has irked China lately, it is Trump. It is merely your conjecture that US will withdraw from Pacific. If Trump needs to deliver all the Jobs he has promised, he will need to invest 'bigly' in manufacturing and only manufacturing left in US now is Defence items. I wonder how can China help him here other than by playing the role of 'enemy' which US needs to justify all the defense spending. His plans are simple. Anatagonize China and justify military spending.

 

[VCheng]

Well, like I said, and made the point to Gambit, I am not an isolationist. The problem though, is that that is always the label fixed to anyone in America who questions whether we should intervene in country "x". The interventionist flip side is that we are so fixated in our WW2 mindset that, every bad guy we are challenged by, we turn into a 'Hitler', and every reluctance to intervention becomes a 'Munich appeasement'.

I understand your position that just as it should not be assumed that USA can intervene wherever it wishes, it also cannot remain aloof from what is happening around the globe. US foreign policy should be decided on a case by case basis, with a clear link to pursuit of national interests. Let us see what the incoming administration will do, given the conflicts around the world today, and its plans to deal with them.

 

[faithfulguy]

I haven't the foggiest idea what a "futurist" is, and frankly, I don't think I would put much stock in what they say, but I for one, hope that my country does develop a much smaller footprint in the world. We Americans have gotten so used to be the "world's superpower" since the end of WW2 and more exclusively, since the end of the Cold War, that we forget that being a global superpower, with a huge standing military, stationed all over the world, intervening in country after country, was the last thing that our republic’s Founding Fathers ever wanted for us! President Thomas Jefferson put it clearly when he stated that the United States should pursue...

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

We need to go back to that. Get our military out of Europe where they have not had any real purpose since 1991. Let Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, etc. defend Asia and themselves. Get out of the Middle East where we have been mostly successful at completely destabilizing the entire region since 2003, turning it into a cauldron of violence and anti-Americanism. We have to stop trying to be the world's policeman where are track record has been abysmal. We have enough problems at home to work on.

Our Founders intended for the United States armed forces to be used for one purpose...to defend the United States of America, and nothing else. We had every reason to go into Afghanistan in 2001, because we were directly attacked from there, but other than that, we should stay out of other countries' business and not meddle in their internal affairs.

America need to strengthening itself. We are not a strong nation any longer so we need to strengthening ourself. The countries of Europe and Asia need to defend themselves.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Certainly they did affect Pakistan more. You know why, don't you? Because Pakistan was much more reliant on US back then. You missed the entire "fear of communism" and now "fear of China" part, did't you? America's entire diplomacy on India is based on keeping India from inclining towards perceived US 'enemies'. Back then it was Russia/USSR, now it is China. I have already told you, US sent the entire USS Enterprise fleet to defend east Pakistan in 71. Also, they were deathly worried about India's attack on Western front. This was seen in the declassified conversation between Kissinger and Nixon.

As far as terrorism go, remember who started it. Remember who still calls terrorist in Kashmir as 'Freedom Fighters'? Who sent terrorists to Mumbai. If you play with fire, expect to get burnt sometimes. Also, when you brand someone as your mortal enemy, where does the question of morality comes from? You were always fighting with gloves off to begin with.

And I find it really funny that you bring Trump and China in this discussion. Remember, only president/president-elect till date to question One China policy is Trump. His foreign and especially military policy is yet to be seen. And, equally funny is the fact that same Obama who had launched pivot to pacific rushed to reaffirm US's stance on 'One China' policy. If any one has irked China lately, it is Trump. It is merely your conjecture that US will withdraw from Pacific. If Trump needs to deliver all the Jobs he has promised, he will need to invest 'bigly' in manufacturing and only manufacturing left in US now is Defence items. I wonder how can China help him here other than by playing the role of 'enemy' which US needs to justify all the defense spending. His plans are simple. Anatagonize China and justify military spending.

First you make up your mind that sanctions were "crippling" for India, as you very conveniently used the word. What I am trying to get through you, that despite Pakistan being a so called "ally" of America, American own acts and geopolitics have always favored India. Even in 1965 war, despite Pakistan part of "ceto" and "cento" military pacts which should have compelled America to support Pakistan militarily, ended up sanctioning Pakistan. What fear of communism you are talking about? India throughout cold war was a very well known Soviet ally. You are very confused. Ah that US navel fleet which never arrived, Do they still teach you in your history classes that this actually happened?

You telling me who started it? Some audacity! Who started the "terrorism" in sovereign state of east Pakistan ? who trained the mukti bahni terrorists? Indian foolishness and insistence upon it got no bound. Kashmir is a "disputed territory" where its inhabitants are fighting for their right of self determination , and mind you, this has been going on long before the independence of Pakistan and India. to label them terrorists is figment of Indian imagination. As for Mumbai, search for Marriot bomb blast in Islamabad first and check the dates. This will enlighten you. Rest assured if we want to make life hell in mumbai, Delhi or Calcutta, it wont be a difficult task for us, yet we have restrained ourselves despite losing 50k plus citizens in this relentless Indian sponsored terrorism via Afghan soil.


You terribly misinformed about American industry if you think ONLY defense related industry is savior of American jobs and hence America needs China as a bogeyman. Geopolitics is all about give and take among the powers to be. Your typical Indian bollywood thinking wont grasp this. I have already given you an example of nomination of new Chinese ambassador. This is what is "actually" happening. With regards to Trump utterance about one China policy, have you actually read his statement. If not I will help you out here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-china-whitehouse-idUSKBN1412A4

Trump set off a diplomatic firestorm when he told Fox News: “I don’t know why we have to be bound by a ‘one China’ policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade.”

Read this what I wrote earlier and things will become clear to you, as we say in Pakistan, Insha Allah. The guys is businessman and wants to make a deal. Chinese will wave their bucket loads of cash and everyone will be happy. Leaving the states like India, who were more then happy marketing themselves to America as bulwark against Chinese expansion, will be left in lurch. Watch the space.

 

[faithfulguy]

I think you mean the Neutrality Act of 1939. The 1937 Act had to do with Spain. In any event, what contributed to British appeasement was British memoires of the carnage of WW1 as well as British internal politics. Had the allies not been so ghastly to Germany after WW1, they wouldn't have had a Hitler to deal with in any event.



But that is specifically what I am not talking about. We were attacked by those pirates. Americans were seized. We should have intervened there.



Again, that is not what I am talking about. What I am talking about are things like sending troops into Cuba and conquering the Philippines on trumped up justifications. Sending troops into Nicaragua, numerous times, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Honduras, seizing a province of Colombia which become Panama, so we could build a canal there. That is just part of where we actually sent in troops and took over governments that were not doing what we wished. None were threats to us. We had no business there. And that was all before WW2. I won't even get into the numerous miscalculations we made during the Cold War, but now, we intervene in Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lybia, etc. How's that worked out for us?

The problem is we Americans have been conditioned to think we are the world's policeman, that we have some sort of magic "right" to tell other countries how to order themselves, which besides being immoral, would be easier to swallow except....we. keep. getting. it. wrong!

But my deeper objection is what I mentioned before; this is NOT what we were intended to be, NOT what our Founders wanted. We have trillions in debt, we can't balance our budget, fix our cities, educate our kids, care for the poor, etc. We need to stop this nonsense and get back to our roots that men like Thomas Jefferson and Washington spoke of.

If I can thank you a million times, I would. You sound like Ron Paul. Who should be the president. Follow by his son.

The Gambit guy is a Vietnamese nationalist who want US to kick out the communist in his country so he can go back home. So he pursue a neocon national policy to further his personal agenda.

 

[Desertfalcon]

If I can thank you a million times, I would. You sound like Ron Paul. Who should be the president. Follow by his son.

The Gambit guy is a Vietnamese nationalist who want US to kick out the communist in his country so he can go back home. So he pursue a neocon national policy to further his sim.

Thanks! I'm not really a "Paulite" though. I'm more of a traditional conservative/right-wing Catholic and I actually voted for the Constitution Party nominee for president, Mr. Castle.

And I actually like @gambit 's posts and I to, wish the communist were gone from beautiful Vietnam.

I just think it is up to the Vietnamese to do that, and not my country. We've already tried that once. Didn't work out so well for either of us.