Obama Says: "Whether We Like it Or Not, We Remain a Dominant Military Superpower"

[saveliberty]

With great power comes great responsibility...whether we like it or not.

If 0bama has said that, I would have understood. He didn't, and his actions are such that it is believable he meant what he actually did say.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

What exactly could he say about this that would make it more right wing friendly? Seriously?

No matter what he says or does, NO MATTER WHAT.....he is wrong with you guys.

Pathetic.

You're what's pathetic.

Why *wouldn't* we want to be a Dominant Military Superpower?

Would you rather the USA be dis-armed, weak and vulnerable to other countries? Say China, Russia, Korea....Iran??

I'm guessing yes, yes you WOULD.

Fucking pathetic.

Do something really strange and educate yourself on what happened to previous world military superpowers.

Like who for example....

 

[JenyEliza]

With great power comes great responsibility...whether we like it or not.

If 0bama has said that, I would have understood. He didn't, and his actions are such that it is believable he meant what he actually did say.

Exactly!

IOW, Barry needs to STFU and let his minders put the words in his mouth. He makes the USA look weak, vulnerable and like a bunch of unqualifed pip-squeaks are running the country.

Oh, wait!

That's exactly what's happening!

 

[JenyEliza]

The point is that when you go back 30 freakin' years shit blends.

Nah. Bullshit. I'm Barry's age and I haven't forgotten *to the day* when I graduated high school.

I graduated from HS June 5, 1981. It was a banner fucking day for me. Getting my diploma was pretty damned important to me. I'll always remember that day.

The DATE won't escape me, nevermind the year.

You graduated high school? I'll be damned!

Fuck you, c*ntlicker.

 

[bodecea]

With great power comes great responsibility...whether we like it or not.

If 0bama has said that, I would have understood. He didn't, and his actions are such that it is believable he meant what he actually did say.

Exactly!

IOW, Barry needs to STFU

What intelligent advice to give the Leader of our Country.

and let his minders put the words in his mouth.

His "minders"? Oh yes, you don't believe that someone "like him" would actually be in control. No way.

He makes the USA look weak, vulnerable and like a bunch of unqualifed pip-squeaks are running the country.

No he doesn't. He's trying to pull us away from the "Bully of the World" image that you love so much.

Oh, wait!

That's exactly what's happening!

I certainly can understand you ing the bullies.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says that the U.S. has to be a empire?

Did any of they founding Fathers every say that their goal was for the U.S. to be a World Super Power?

Our stature as a world super power happened as a result of WWII - more of an accident than by design. Once we were in that position, we had to act responsibly.

However, there is no mandate for us to be the world's dominant power.

The only real justification is that if we are not a world dominant power, that means that some other country will dominate us.

The true basis for the continued insistence that we be the world's single dominant power is just the instinctual nature of the wingnuts - they like so many civilizations before that are preprogrammed to dominate - like every other sleazy empire that has every existed. The wingnuts would have us be no different than the Romans.

Questioning the need for us to be a world superpower is the only intelligent thing to do. In fact, the true tradition of America is to be isolationist, not an empire.

We dont have to be, but we became one because of the greatness of this country. We were so successful, that we blossomed into the most powerful nation the world has ever known. Along with that, of course, comes a big ass bulls-eye. Just like in sports. We are the Yankees of baseball, in a global political analogy. People are going to hate us just for being richer, better fed, happier, ect. Along with our success comes military power. And that military power often must fend off evil. Evil against us, but also evil against allies.....because allowing evil to spread and conquer allies will like cancer eventually get to us.

No, no, no. Good god where are you people getting this idea from? A country isn't inherently "great", "good", or "evil". Get this out of your head. Just like the team the Yankees isn't "great", "good" or "evil", its the human agency that instills these arbitrary, constructed moral ideas. The PLAYERS for the yankees are what make the yankees amazing, not their name or because they make more money.

You have it completely backwards. People don't hate us for being richer, or better fed. Why do you think they call it the AMERICAN dream, not the European Dream, or the Russian dream. Everyone aspires to acquire a high standard of living. Our success didn't bring us military power, our military helped bring us success.

And once again, there is no fucking "evil" out there. There are threats to national security that will always be prevalent and hence we need to always look out for OUR interests, not our allies, or anyone else, because we aren't "friends", they aren't "good", the enemy isn't "evil". It's about power, about who is strong, and who is weak.

Hard power (military and economic) is no longer the only or best type of power to be exercised in every situation. Soft power is increasingly becoming important, and that means forging stronger multilateral ties in issues where there are convergence, asserting our national interests where there interests diverge from ours, and finally, shaping these insitutions and their norms so that America continues to shape the international order.

It's become quite obvious to all but the most foolish of observers that a wanton, unilateral use of hard power is no longer as effective as it once was, hence a need to foster our soft power once more.

He's not saying he wants the military to grow weak, what he's saying is that we will always be a target because of our strong military. That is all.

ROFL!

Well said! It's rare when it's stated so openly... usually such duplicity is carefully cloaked.

Now kids understand that Evil has come to report that 'there's no evil out there'... so there's no need to be vigilent of evil...

Everything is relative... Naturally, there's no good out there either... so it's fair.

A Mass murdering rapist is exactly the same thing as Mother Teresa...

So all the high ideals of the American founding... The Endowment of divine, natural rights... It's no better or worse than the rights of the collective which the 'citizens' of indo-china enjoyed when Mao was cleansing the population of incorrigibles...

Thus, the Brown Clown isn't so BAD....

Raw, unadulterated DECEIT... unapologetic FRAUD...​

PURE EVIL!​

 

[hyakku]

While your racism is cute, it doesn't bother me, I've dealt with bigots in all shapes, sizes and colors (black people like me too). Good job though, it's always good to see an ass make...well an ass of himself. Thanks for making me feel better while I'm sick .

As for the rest of this thread, I won't respond to the obvious ignoramuses (ignorami? I think ignorami should be a word) who are jut going to ignore history, but I know some of you guys are relatively reasonable, despite us having totally different worldviews.

Being a UNIPOLAR hegemony is not really feasible. I mean, this isn't something that's really up for debate, that's why I don't see why you guys are so upset. I guess Kissinger was right when he said American's really don't believe that we're an empire, or have imperial tendencies, or play Realpolitik when we need to (well...now we are. I can't say the same for Bush JR.s or Clinton's FP.).

But really I mean when it comes down to it there's usually one key concept in the realist traditions (which all of you right wingers would have to logically side with, otherwise you're just being absurd to claim to lean to right and not support realism) about Hegemonic Stability Theory. : Unipolar assertion of our material wealth in an attempt to translate that into political influence.

Unfortunately, once again, this isn't really an issue up for debate, it just doesn't work. History has lesson, after lesson, after lesson ad naesum about people rising forth to balance and hegemon (militarily, economically, sociopolitically, etc.).

The Bush Doctrine proves that this traditional idealism of material preponderance is pure, Wilsonian 2.0 failure. It doesn't work. It never will work. Bush knew this, it's unfortunate he had to acquiesce to so many people in his administrations demands about Iraq and whatnot. His handling of Afghanistan was superb, despite using only American resources he fulfilled all of the requirements of moving us towards TRUE hegemony (right now we aren't the hegemony, we just have international military and economic primacy. A HUGE difference).

what's a true hegemony? It's when you using force or potential anti-American coalitions are something that is literally unthinkable. In this view I think it's important to look at both Realist and Constructivists arguments and you get a better picture about what America needs to do to not only continue our global dominance, but spread it even more than it currently is.

In this revised view, hegemonic power is intricately linked with social legitimacy. There's a ton of good theories out there, I personally subscribe to the believe that true hegemony requires that the hegemon assure the other members of their security, and in exchange there's a mutual recognition of their ideals, values and morals as universal, and natural.

We were moving into that direction before the first Bush Doctrine failed. Thankfully, he hopped back into the game, getting us closer with China, distancing us from Europe (love em, but there are far more opportunistic nations we could be benefiting from. We don't need to ditch em, just don't need to keep fostering an unnecessary "special" relationship when the future is in the developing world.), and leading an incredible multilateral campaign in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, he squandered away a ton of the legitimacy with unilateral actions that made both allies and enemies insecure, cost us legitimacy, and has produced new national threats we now have to cope with (nuclear terrorism would've been laughable compared to the idea of a nuclear Iran or Syria 8 years ago. Now we worry that Iran or syria will SUPPORT nuclear terrorism).

 

[saveliberty]

hyakku thinks every is just relative. The only evil is when someone makes a judgement. Yet he is first in line to hang a title on someone like racist. I like how these libs are using terms like, "agree or not", " this isn't really an issue up for debate" and "like it or not". Simply dismissing any opposition as impossible. Go bury your head in that blackhole of a CA university.

 

[mudwhistle]

Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says that the U.S. has to be a empire?

Did any of they founding Fathers every say that their goal was for the U.S. to be a World Super Power?

Our stature as a world super power happened as a result of WWII - more of an accident than by design. Once we were in that position, we had to act responsibly.

However, there is no mandate for us to be the world's dominant power.

The only real justification is that if we are not a world dominant power, that means that some other country will dominate us.

The true basis for the continued insistence that we be the world's single dominant power is just the instinctual nature of the wingnuts - they like so many civilizations before that are preprogrammed to dominate - like every other sleazy empire that has every existed. The wingnuts would have us be no different than the Romans.

Questioning the need for us to be a world superpower is the only intelligent thing to do. In fact, the true tradition of America is to be isolationist, not an empire.

We dont have to be, but we became one because of the greatness of this country. We were so successful, that we blossomed into the most powerful nation the world has ever known. Along with that, of course, comes a big ass bulls-eye. Just like in sports. We are the Yankees of baseball, in a global political analogy. People are going to hate us just for being richer, better fed, happier, ect. Along with our success comes military power. And that military power often must fend off evil. Evil against us, but also evil against allies.....because allowing evil to spread and conquer allies will like cancer eventually get to us.

No, no, no. Good god where are you people getting this idea from? A country isn't inherently "great", "good", or "evil". Get this out of your head. Just like the team the Yankees isn't "great", "good" or "evil", its the human agency that instills these arbitrary, constructed moral ideas. The PLAYERS for the yankees are what make the yankees amazing, not their name or because they make more money.

You have it completely backwards. People don't hate us for being richer, or better fed. Why do you think they call it the AMERICAN dream, not the European Dream, or the Russian dream. Everyone aspires to acquire a high standard of living. Our success didn't bring us military power, our military helped bring us success.

And once again, there is no fucking "evil" out there. There are threats to national security that will always be prevalent and hence we need to always look out for OUR interests, not our allies, or anyone else, because we aren't "friends", they aren't "good", the enemy isn't "evil". It's about power, about who is strong, and who is weak.

Hard power (military and economic) is no longer the only or best type of power to be exercised in every situation. Soft power is increasingly becoming important, and that means forging stronger multilateral ties in issues where there are convergence, asserting our national interests where there interests diverge from ours, and finally, shaping these insitutions and their norms so that America continues to shape the international order.

It's become quite obvious to all but the most foolish of observers that a wanton, unilateral use of hard power is no longer as effective as it once was, hence a need to foster our soft power once more.

He's not saying he wants the military to grow weak, what he's saying is that we will always be a target because of our strong military. That is all.

What he's saying in a nutshell is he's uncomfortable with America being a Superpower.

His education and upbringing doesn't make him feel pride in our military.

That's what he's saying.

 

[hyakku]

hyakku thinks every is just relative. The only evil is when someone makes a judgement. Yet he is first in line to hang a title on someone like racist. I like how these libs are using terms like, "agree or not", " this isn't really an issue up for debate" and "like it or not". Simply dismissing any opposition as impossible. Go bury your head in that blackhole of a CA university.

LOL. My man called him a BROWN CLOWN. I don't think the dude is evil, he's juts racist. Not a big deal with me, but I call it like I see it. I don't need to hang on to the title, i'm pretty sure he wouldn't deny it either, but that's what's great about America, we can both coexist despite seething hatred for each other.


As for the rest of your assertions, you can't argue with history dude. I don't know why you're getting mad at me for that. There's DOZENS of examples (in fact, I would venture to say 99% of empires or the few hegemonies that have existed) in history that prove that empires and hegemonies collapse when you (1) overstretch your military, (2) fall into a cycle of economic mismanagement to support said military, (3) and the least recognized is actually acting with legitimacy in the eyes of other actors.

ANY time ONE of these three principles have been abused by an empire or hegemony over a sustained period of time has ALWAYS lead to the others (3 wouldn't be applicable to an empire, but then again there's no empires anymore in the traditional sense), and the end of that regime. Period.

England pre 1914? Economic system couldn't possibly face the production US or Germany, causing military overstretch and underfunding, and a loss of legitimacy.

. Russia eh...choose an era. Crimean War? Military Overstretch. Cold War? Military and Economic overstretch combined with a loss of legitimacy in their own regions (various revolutions, subnational movements, etc. demonstrate this).

France in the 17th-18th century? They started acting like US, and everyone rose to check them.

I don't even know why you get upset, it's not like i'm bashing you, these are historical FACTS. Once again. You. Can. NOT. Argue. With. History. We can go on and on.

However, do you know what was the longest period of peace in Europe without major wars breaking out? It was the time after the Concert of Europe, where a UN-esque security council of Prussia, Russia, France, England and the Hapsburg Empire agreed to each cede some of their autonomy over certain decisions and sovereignty to a set of institutions, norms and laws that encouraged satellite actors to join because it offered a promise of stable (relatively, small battles of course were frequent at this time, nothing like the war that had ravaged the country two centuries prior), legitimate rule of law, and the large powers were satisfied as it checked each other's power and allowed a growth of international trade and economic prosperity that was unprecedented.

Sounds like something we had going there for a while with US a LEADERS of this order, until we lost a good amount of our credibility and legitimacy with the failed Iraq invasion, commitment to unilateralism (after a while it seemed like Bush's administration just wanted to piss people off).

History, logic, and pragmatism shows that a policy of engagement and assimilation into our Order is the best way to ensure we maintain control over the emerging international order. You may not agree with me, but can you honestly sit here and tell me you believe that Henry Kissinger doesn't know what he's talking about either when he encourages nuclear disarmament? What about Schulz?

I just don't see the basis for your argument, when history shows that whatever asshats starts declaring how big and strong he is, his house comes tumbling down around him.

 

[hyakku]

We dont have to be, but we became one because of the greatness of this country. We were so successful, that we blossomed into the most powerful nation the world has ever known. Along with that, of course, comes a big ass bulls-eye. Just like in sports. We are the Yankees of baseball, in a global political analogy. People are going to hate us just for being richer, better fed, happier, ect. Along with our success comes military power. And that military power often must fend off evil. Evil against us, but also evil against allies.....because allowing evil to spread and conquer allies will like cancer eventually get to us.

No, no, no. Good god where are you people getting this idea from? A country isn't inherently "great", "good", or "evil". Get this out of your head. Just like the team the Yankees isn't "great", "good" or "evil", its the human agency that instills these arbitrary, constructed moral ideas. The PLAYERS for the yankees are what make the yankees amazing, not their name or because they make more money.

You have it completely backwards. People don't hate us for being richer, or better fed. Why do you think they call it the AMERICAN dream, not the European Dream, or the Russian dream. Everyone aspires to acquire a high standard of living. Our success didn't bring us military power, our military helped bring us success.

And once again, there is no fucking "evil" out there. There are threats to national security that will always be prevalent and hence we need to always look out for OUR interests, not our allies, or anyone else, because we aren't "friends", they aren't "good", the enemy isn't "evil". It's about power, about who is strong, and who is weak.

Hard power (military and economic) is no longer the only or best type of power to be exercised in every situation. Soft power is increasingly becoming important, and that means forging stronger multilateral ties in issues where there are convergence, asserting our national interests where there interests diverge from ours, and finally, shaping these insitutions and their norms so that America continues to shape the international order.

It's become quite obvious to all but the most foolish of observers that a wanton, unilateral use of hard power is no longer as effective as it once was, hence a need to foster our soft power once more.

He's not saying he wants the military to grow weak, what he's saying is that we will always be a target because of our strong military. That is all.

What he's saying in a nutshell is he's uncomfortable with America being a Superpower.

His education and upbringing doesn't make him feel pride in our military.

That's what he's saying.

Oh yea that Harvard upbringing sure hates our military. It's not like some of our most ardent, realist secretaries of states and other key, hawkish politcians didn't come from Harvard.

And I thought we had the best weed out here .

 

[Si modo]

No, no, no. Good god where are you people getting this idea from? A country isn't inherently "great", "good", or "evil". Get this out of your head. Just like the team the Yankees isn't "great", "good" or "evil", its the human agency that instills these arbitrary, constructed moral ideas. The PLAYERS for the yankees are what make the yankees amazing, not their name or because they make more money.

You have it completely backwards. People don't hate us for being richer, or better fed. Why do you think they call it the AMERICAN dream, not the European Dream, or the Russian dream. Everyone aspires to acquire a high standard of living. Our success didn't bring us military power, our military helped bring us success.

And once again, there is no fucking "evil" out there. There are threats to national security that will always be prevalent and hence we need to always look out for OUR interests, not our allies, or anyone else, because we aren't "friends", they aren't "good", the enemy isn't "evil". It's about power, about who is strong, and who is weak.

Hard power (military and economic) is no longer the only or best type of power to be exercised in every situation. Soft power is increasingly becoming important, and that means forging stronger multilateral ties in issues where there are convergence, asserting our national interests where there interests diverge from ours, and finally, shaping these insitutions and their norms so that America continues to shape the international order.

It's become quite obvious to all but the most foolish of observers that a wanton, unilateral use of hard power is no longer as effective as it once was, hence a need to foster our soft power once more.

He's not saying he wants the military to grow weak, what he's saying is that we will always be a target because of our strong military. That is all.

What he's saying in a nutshell is he's uncomfortable with America being a Superpower.

His education and upbringing doesn't make him feel pride in our military.

That's what he's saying.

Oh yea that Harvard upbringing sure hates our military. It's not like some of our most ardent, realist secretaries of states and other key, hawkish politcians didn't come from Harvard.

And I thought we had the best weed out here .

His education was more than just Harvard. But, Mud can clarify if he just meant Harvard when he said "education and upbringing", I'm sure.

 

[mudwhistle]

No, no, no. Good god where are you people getting this idea from? A country isn't inherently "great", "good", or "evil". Get this out of your head. Just like the team the Yankees isn't "great", "good" or "evil", its the human agency that instills these arbitrary, constructed moral ideas. The PLAYERS for the yankees are what make the yankees amazing, not their name or because they make more money.

You have it completely backwards. People don't hate us for being richer, or better fed. Why do you think they call it the AMERICAN dream, not the European Dream, or the Russian dream. Everyone aspires to acquire a high standard of living. Our success didn't bring us military power, our military helped bring us success.

And once again, there is no fucking "evil" out there. There are threats to national security that will always be prevalent and hence we need to always look out for OUR interests, not our allies, or anyone else, because we aren't "friends", they aren't "good", the enemy isn't "evil". It's about power, about who is strong, and who is weak.

Hard power (military and economic) is no longer the only or best type of power to be exercised in every situation. Soft power is increasingly becoming important, and that means forging stronger multilateral ties in issues where there are convergence, asserting our national interests where there interests diverge from ours, and finally, shaping these insitutions and their norms so that America continues to shape the international order.

It's become quite obvious to all but the most foolish of observers that a wanton, unilateral use of hard power is no longer as effective as it once was, hence a need to foster our soft power once more.

He's not saying he wants the military to grow weak, what he's saying is that we will always be a target because of our strong military. That is all.

What he's saying in a nutshell is he's uncomfortable with America being a Superpower.

His education and upbringing doesn't make him feel pride in our military.

That's what he's saying.

Oh yea that Harvard upbringing sure hates our military. It's not like some of our most ardent, realist secretaries of states and other key, hawkish politcians didn't come from Harvard.

And I thought we had the best weed out here .

I think it depends on alot of things but Obama grew up around communists. He's not of the same mindset as those so-called Hawks. He's bought into the Liberal BS that is most prevalent at Harvard.

 

[HUGGY]

Obama is my big time super power monkey.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0FBi5Rv1ho&feature=related]YouTube - Peter Gabriel Big Time[/ame]