TPP?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The way it’s going, I’m betting on folding. We’re not going to tangle with someone who could give us an equal fight. History has shown this. Unfortunately.[/quote]

The word escapes me at the moment, but I believe there’s a term for someone who only fights weaker opponents.

[/quote]

The champion? The one that has arisen from the ranks and proved to be stronger than the rest of the competition?
[/quote]

Not really a term, but a word: Smart

42

Sad? I remember a lot of things like this. I was writing in the other thread about things that happened 30 years ago and I’ll continue here. I;m not a hippy liberal who hates his country and the armed forces. I’m just a realist. Here’s what happened:

Marines killed in Lebanon. Instead of staging an amphibious invasion and slaughtering each and every last terrorist, we pulled our forces out and did nothing. Instead we saved face by invading Grenada.

The Russians kill a US soldier in East Germany. We do nothing. Yet when Libya bombs a disco, we retaliate. Every time times get tough, we’re outside the coast of Libya tangling with Qaddafi. Just watch Back to The Future. The Libyans were our enemies for a reason.

And for a decade we helped Saddam, then turned on him.

We get a couple helicopters shot down in Somalia and we turn tail and run. They should have retaliated once again, but did not.

We launched a couple of rockets at Sudan and The Taliban that amounted to nothing. Why? I don’t even know.

And when the chips were really down, and we were at war with the Taliban for 9-11, we took our eye off the prize and invaded Iraq.

And here we are today.

Now the Russians are threatening Europe and the Chinese the Pacific and we do nothing. They’ve watched us for 20 years, know our tactics and adapted, know we have no stomach for protracted war, a war against a stronger foe and, in any event, will not have the commitment to do what it takes to win.

Unfortunately.

43

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The way it’s going, I’m betting on folding. We’re not going to tangle with someone who could give us an equal fight. History has shown this. Unfortunately.[/quote]

The word escapes me at the moment, but I believe there’s a term for someone who only fights weaker opponents.

[/quote]

In IR jargon, regional hegemon and offshore-balancer. Or, depending on your perspective, bully.

44

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The way it’s going, I’m betting on folding. We’re not going to tangle with someone who could give us an equal fight. History has shown this. Unfortunately.[/quote]

The word escapes me at the moment, but I believe there’s a term for someone who only fights weaker opponents.

[/quote]

The champion? The one that has arisen from the ranks and proved to be stronger than the rest of the competition?
[/quote]

Yup. Just like The Italian Stallion at the beginning of Rocky 3.

45

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The way it’s going, I’m betting on folding. We’re not going to tangle with someone who could give us an equal fight. History has shown this. Unfortunately.[/quote]

The word escapes me at the moment, but I believe there’s a term for someone who only fights weaker opponents.

[/quote]

The champion? The one that has arisen from the ranks and proved to be stronger than the rest of the competition?
[/quote]

Yup. Just like The Italian Stallion at the beginning of Rocky 3.
[/quote]

Perhaps a more fitting analogy?

46

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The way it’s going, I’m betting on folding. We’re not going to tangle with someone who could give us an equal fight. History has shown this. Unfortunately.[/quote]

The word escapes me at the moment, but I believe there’s a term for someone who only fights weaker opponents.

[/quote]

The champion? The one that has arisen from the ranks and proved to be stronger than the rest of the competition?
[/quote]

Yup. Just like The Italian Stallion at the beginning of Rocky 3.
[/quote]

In spite of recent American misadventures, I have to disagree. The inevitably of American decline is a myth. The twenty first century will only see Amercan power further solidify. The relative power advantage enjoyed by the United States is enormous, and the roots of American preeminence will only dig deeper. The post-World War II era truly is the world America made, and Americans would be ill-advised to commit what Robert Kagan calls “preeminent superpower suicide”.

47

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The way it’s going, I’m betting on folding. We’re not going to tangle with someone who could give us an equal fight. History has shown this. Unfortunately.[/quote]

The word escapes me at the moment, but I believe there’s a term for someone who only fights weaker opponents.

[/quote]

The champion? The one that has arisen from the ranks and proved to be stronger than the rest of the competition?
[/quote]

Yup. Just like The Italian Stallion at the beginning of Rocky 3.
[/quote]

In spite of recent American misadventures, I have to disagree. The inevitably of American decline is a myth. The twenty first century will only see American power further solidify. The relative power advantage enjoyed by the United States is enormous, and the roots of American preeminence will only dig deeper. The post-World War II era truly is the world America made, and Americans would be ill-advised to commit what Robert Kagan calls “preeminent superpower suicide”. [/quote]

I read the Kagan book you recommended “The Return of History and the End of Dreams”.

My assessment, as dilettante as it may be, is not the loss of super power status but more of a loss of market share.

We may still be the bellwether, but there are other rising contenders that are certainly deserving of merit and it will not be as easy for us to dominate the market without paying certain costs.

48

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The way it’s going, I’m betting on folding. We’re not going to tangle with someone who could give us an equal fight. History has shown this. Unfortunately.[/quote]

The word escapes me at the moment, but I believe there’s a term for someone who only fights weaker opponents.

[/quote]

The champion? The one that has arisen from the ranks and proved to be stronger than the rest of the competition?
[/quote]

Yup. Just like The Italian Stallion at the beginning of Rocky 3.
[/quote]

In spite of recent American misadventures, I have to disagree. The inevitably of American decline is a myth. The twenty first century will only see American power further solidify. The relative power advantage enjoyed by the United States is enormous, and the roots of American preeminence will only dig deeper. The post-World War II era truly is the world America made, and Americans would be ill-advised to commit what Robert Kagan calls “preeminent superpower suicide”. [/quote]

I read the Kagan book you recommended “The Return of History and the End of Dreams”.

My assessment, as dilettante as it may be, is not the loss of super power status but more of a loss of market share.

We may still be the bellwether, but there are other rising contenders that are certainly deserving of merit and it will not be as easy for us to dominate the market without paying certain costs.
[/quote]

That’s a good way of putting it. His 2012 “The World America Made” is a must read for anyone interested in the international system and America’s past, present, and future role in it. Kagan has also become a senior foreign policy advisor to HRC, believe it or not. If she wins the White House in 2016, he will be along for the ride.

49

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The way it’s going, I’m betting on folding. We’re not going to tangle with someone who could give us an equal fight. History has shown this. Unfortunately.[/quote]

The word escapes me at the moment, but I believe there’s a term for someone who only fights weaker opponents.

[/quote]

The champion? The one that has arisen from the ranks and proved to be stronger than the rest of the competition?
[/quote]

Yup. Just like The Italian Stallion at the beginning of Rocky 3.
[/quote]

In spite of recent American misadventures, I have to disagree. The inevitably of American decline is a myth. The twenty first century will only see Amercan power further solidify. The relative power advantage enjoyed by the United States is enormous, and the roots of American preeminence will only dig deeper. The post-World War II era truly is the world America made, and Americans would be ill-advised to commit what Robert Kagan calls “preeminent superpower suicide”. [/quote]

We’ll see about that.

I see your Kagan and raise you one Colinvaux.

Two chapters in particular: Rebellion in America and The Shape of Things to Come.

Written in the eighties, but surprisingly prescient.

50

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The way it’s going, I’m betting on folding. We’re not going to tangle with someone who could give us an equal fight. History has shown this. Unfortunately.[/quote]

The word escapes me at the moment, but I believe there’s a term for someone who only fights weaker opponents.

[/quote]

The champion? The one that has arisen from the ranks and proved to be stronger than the rest of the competition?
[/quote]

Yup. Just like The Italian Stallion at the beginning of Rocky 3.
[/quote]

In spite of recent American misadventures, I have to disagree. The inevitably of American decline is a myth. The twenty first century will only see Amercan power further solidify. The relative power advantage enjoyed by the United States is enormous, and the roots of American preeminence will only dig deeper. The post-World War II era truly is the world America made, and Americans would be ill-advised to commit what Robert Kagan calls “preeminent superpower suicide”. [/quote]

We’ll see about that.

I see your Kagan and raise you one Colinvaux.

Two chapters in particular: Rebellion in America and The Shape of Things to Come.

Written in the eighties, but surprisingly prescient.[/quote]

Thanks for the recommendation. I’ll definitely be picking up a copy. I took a biological anthroplolgy class during my undergrad which I greatly enjoyed. It led me to ponder the contributions anthropologists could make to the field of international relations.

I like to think that good books age like good wine. Among my most worn and beloved books are Thucydides’ “The History of the Peloponnesian War” (431 BC), Machiavelli’s “The Prince” (1532), and Hobbes’ “Leviathan” (1651). I certainly won’t dismiss a work published as recently as 1980.

51

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Thanks for the recommendation. I’ll definitely be picking up a copy. I took a biological anthroplolgy class during my undergrad which I greatly enjoyed. It led me to ponder the contributions anthropologists could make to the field of international relations.[/quote]

My pleasure. It’s a quirky little book, and is now out of print, but I enjoy recommending it to my friends for the “eureka” reactions they often get from reading it. Colinvaux is an ecological biologist, by the way, but not in the sense that most people understand the word “ecology”.

I have all of the above, plus Xenophon’s Anabasis, Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, and de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, on my iPad.

52

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The way it’s going, I’m betting on folding. We’re not going to tangle with someone who could give us an equal fight. History has shown this. Unfortunately.[/quote]

The word escapes me at the moment, but I believe there’s a term for someone who only fights weaker opponents.

[/quote]

The champion? The one that has arisen from the ranks and proved to be stronger than the rest of the competition?
[/quote]

Yup. Just like The Italian Stallion at the beginning of Rocky 3.
[/quote]

In spite of recent American misadventures, I have to disagree. The inevitably of American decline is a myth. The twenty first century will only see Amercan power further solidify. The relative power advantage enjoyed by the United States is enormous, and the roots of American preeminence will only dig deeper. The post-World War II era truly is the world America made, and Americans would be ill-advised to commit what Robert Kagan calls “preeminent superpower suicide”. [/quote]

I would have to disagree. While I’d like to think that what you say here is the case, I do not. All great civilizations in history have either collapsed or contracted. That is inevitable. The timeline is up for debate however, but the overall course is rather set. Spengler may not have been correct in every sense in his analysis, but all civilizations contract and fade.

I do not see us having the political stomach AND savvy to continue the world leadership through this century, although I’d love to say you’re correct. While we certainly would be unwise to commit “superpower suicide” , the fact that something would be “unwise” for us to do hasn’t ever really stopped us from doing it before, has it? I mean surely you can look at a list of mistakes we as a country have made internationally.

53

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The way it’s going, I’m betting on folding. We’re not going to tangle with someone who could give us an equal fight. History has shown this. Unfortunately.[/quote]

The word escapes me at the moment, but I believe there’s a term for someone who only fights weaker opponents.

[/quote]

The champion? The one that has arisen from the ranks and proved to be stronger than the rest of the competition?
[/quote]

Yup. Just like The Italian Stallion at the beginning of Rocky 3.
[/quote]

In spite of recent American misadventures, I have to disagree. The inevitably of American decline is a myth. The twenty first century will only see Amercan power further solidify. The relative power advantage enjoyed by the United States is enormous, and the roots of American preeminence will only dig deeper. The post-World War II era truly is the world America made, and Americans would be ill-advised to commit what Robert Kagan calls “preeminent superpower suicide”. [/quote]

We’ll see about that.

I see your Kagan and raise you one Colinvaux.

Two chapters in particular: Rebellion in America and The Shape of Things to Come.

Written in the eighties, but surprisingly prescient.[/quote]

Thanks for the recommendation. I’ll definitely be picking up a copy. I took a biological anthroplolgy class during my undergrad which I greatly enjoyed. It led me to ponder the contributions anthropologists could make to the field of international relations.

I like to think that good books age like good wine. Among my most worn and beloved books are Thucydides’ “The History of the Peloponnesian War” (431 BC), Machiavelli’s “The Prince” (1532), and Hobbes’ “Leviathan” (1651). I certainly won’t dismiss a work published as recently as 1980.[/quote]

Two of those three classics are favorites of mine and reside in central places on my bookshelf. Unfortunately I have to admit I have not read Leviathan and I really, really need to. I’m familiar with Hobbes’ philosophy but I need to dig into the primary source documents.

I’ll be picking up both books you and Varq mentioned.