And back to Obama -
Obama quits his Chicago church | The Australian
Obama does not have enough experience and maturity to lead the USA. Hillary Clinton was a potential choice until the past few days when she began crying about losing. Obama shows stability but his lack of experience might be a big problem in todays world. Look for McCain to win even if he is too old and questionable health.
The Dems could have simply let this campaign run its course as the most exciting race in years and not hectored Hilary as to when to get out.
Why they can't get work out their differences with the Mich and Fla delegations fairly (seat every delegate they are both entitled to) is beyond me. Dean and others talk of party unity but this issue is far more debilitating to party unity than Hilary campaigning on.
As to the other topic about the US and world power one of the greatest threats today is terrorism from stateless terrorists. It is not about having conventional wars. Don't kid yourself about the US military being the best other than the weapons. They are stretched in Iraq and around the world so badly they would need to re-start the draft all over and look at how that would divide the greatest divided power in the world.
$9 billion a month wasted in Iraq. It is no wonder they have 80 million Americans with no health care and many more in poverty and with poor quality education. For the greatest nation on earth to squander its taxpayers in Iraq is a sad, sad story indeed. The price Americans at home are paying for the misadventures of Bush and his compatriots who subscribe to the "Project for a New American Century" is criminal.
You want to know where China is going read Ted Fishman's book, China, Inc. This is Chicago commodities brokerage owner. Don't ever underestimate China in the 21st Century.
I certainly wouldn't call the US the greatest nation on earth. Being rich and influential doesn't mean greatness in my book. I guess it depends whether you think Bill Gates is greater than Gandhi, Shakespeare or Einstein. All depends on what you value...
And whether Obama, McCain or Clinton becomes president, it's not going to make a whole lot of difference. They are not people who will change the course of history and it will be pretty well more of the same just like it has been for years. Surely a little better because I honestly can't see it being worse than under Bush. Any of these people should be a significant improvement. For a starter, they all can pronounce nuclear!
Just a comment on the point that america is the richest nation. I could be wrong here so if anybody knows more about the US economy please put me straight. I read somewhere that the US government has a budget deficit that runs into the trillions ie it has no money and it will take generations to put right. One of the main ways the US can raise money is to issue us treasury bonds, which china is the major buyer. So china has America by the balls so to speak. They could dump the bonds making the dollar worthless. Also doesn't chinas trade surplus mean that it is rolling in cash?
Im sure the us has the biggest military but this does not count for anything when fighting modern wars. In Afghanistan the most advanced war machine the world has ever seen is up against a load of terrorists dressed in pyjamas and flip flops and they are still getting their asses kicked- see 'roberts ridge' by Malcolm Macpherson.
Countries acting in self interest - its easy to say america is only doing what's best for them so its ok. but there are many examples of countries doing things for the good of humanity and our future generations. The environment for example. A lot of green initiatives have been taken up by many countries, for example green building regulations, reduction in carbon etc, its not good for profit, it makes them less competitive, and it is costly but they do it because of the social responsibility to humanity and were all screwed if we dont. America stands alone in the world in not taking global warming seriously.
What people seem to be implying is America is the biggest and baddest so it can do what it wants because because if i were them i would do that too and also there is no one else to challenge them. China inc is a great book and i recommend it to anyone who wants to know the history and future for china and the world. For thousands of years china was the biggest nation on earth and was interested in fostering trade ,tribute system and never invaded a country. China will rise again and take over / join the US as a leading superpower and it will happen in our lifetime. Experince is a major issue in this thread on the obama thing, so In terms of positive experience for leading the world china gets my vote over the US.
China leading the world? That's very funny... A country that can barely feed its people yes sinks mountains of money sending someone in space. Many disastrous environmental catastrophes starting with the dam. Human rights? Suspect banking system supported by the state, corruption rife... poverty on a gigantic scale...
As to deficit, someone needs to bone up on economics. A deficit is usually the shortfall in a budget year. This currently runs at around 200 billion and is expected to turn into a surplus in the next few years(or so the experts say).
The debt is of course the sum of money owed by the US which does run into the trillions. The actual amount of money is meaningless without taking into account the GDP of a country. In simple terms, if I owed a million dollars, i would be in trouble but Bill Gates can wipe his butt with this amount.
My dearest friend Bush of course has been running up the debt and increasing the percentage of the GDP which generally isn't a good thing. Now the myth that China holds a significant enough stake to have the US by the balls is frankly ridiculous. No two large economies such as China or the US can dictate anything to the other because retaliations would be equally damaging. You could call it the MAD of economics the same way that it's pretty well unthinkable that either China or the US would use a nuclear bomb because of the dire repercussions that would have to be faced.
As to the US getting their ass kicked militarily, once again a very poor assumption. There's a very big difference between not achieving your objective and actually getting beaten. If you want to use a little propaganda, you could say that there have been far more casualties on the other side therefore who's getting their ass kicked?
No one in the world could gain control of Iraq or Afghanistan militarily at the moment. Russia tried and failed in Afghanistan and the US and allies decided to try and are still failing miserably. Rooting out underground movements has historically been extremely difficult and it's nothing new. Some people seem to think that the current terrorist activities are something new yet it's age old. You can't fight what you can't see... Nothing new there. "Winning" doesn't really happen, one side eventually tires and gets out. Given the media and political winds, it's easy to see that just by bringing a handful of US body bags, it creates an atmosphere where the US will eventually have to withdraw.
The image is more like someone going into the woods and getting bitten by mosquitoes. You can kill a bunch but eventually you give up and get out. Now if you want to say that the mosquitoes kicked you ass...
Until another country dethrones the USA, it will have to be accepted as the Number one power. But the real question is who will be its leader for the next four years? No one expected Bush to start a war soon after taking office, and having it last 8 years or more. The next president has the best chance of ending the war. Obama may be able but only if the people (advisor) around him want to end it. McCain is a war horse, and not likely to run from a fight. Another consideration is the world economy, now in a spiral due to high oil prices, and that added with natural disasters around the world, mean the next president has to try and turn things around, which Bush and Company let run wild. Since most people on here will not have a vote, but an opinion, again which candidate looks best for the worlds future?
Lesser of three evils would be Obama...
'The actual amount of money is meaningless without taking into account the GDP of a country.' gilleshk. can you explain this point dont quite get it.
Im pretty sure i didnt say china leading the world, i said it would be a superpower. No one nation should be or has the right to 'Lead the world'.
A country that can barley feed it people is the 4th largest enconmy in the world. What do natural disasters have to do with anything , america has them as well. Look at the US response to hurricane katrina and the china response to the quake. Human rights, curroption- i think US have that as well.
i see in the news the military celebrating the fact they have killed 200 terrorists or whatever vs only 3 US soldiers killed. The same policy of body count was used in the vietnam war. The trouble with that is there are thousands more terrorists willing to take the place of those killed while the same cannot be said of American soldiers. The inequality of the two sides - US being far more superior to a guy with an AK id say they guy with slippers is doing a surprisingly effective job. Not achiveing your objective means you have failed in the mission , did America fail in their mission in Vietnam or get their asses kicked?
As for the debt, you can imagine a mortgage or any loan... The bank will only loan you up to a certain amount of what you are worth. In essence, the GDP reflects what the country is worth. Now many people are concerned(with good reasons) that this ratio has been steadily growing under the republicans(Clinton managed to balance the budget which combined with economic growth lowered the ratio). Of course, the conservatives claim that the increasing rate is minimal and can be covered by the growth of the economy. There may be some rough times ahead for the US with Medicare, Social Security and an aging population.
I certainly wouldn't argue that they are going in the right direction and I think Bush's economic policies(if he has any) are horrendous. I think that the US will face some hard times but they are so far ahead of any single country that they will remain the most influential country on earth for the rest of the century.
The EU as a bloc remains a powerful economic force but they are hardly a united entity so it's not easy for them to make decision or be influential without first agreeing on what to do...
China will at best match Japan and will remain a regional player for many many years to come... Maybe someday they might overcome the US... The only thing history teaches us is that there are always changes and little remains unchanged.
As for human rights, corruption etc... comparing China with the US is absolutely ridiculous. I agree that no nation has the moral right to dictate to others and that the US is very very very far from being the bastion of freedom and democracy that they claim but China??? Let's be serious...
Lastly the US failed miserably in Vietnam as they are in Iraq but to say they had their ass kicked??? Vietnam took at least 20 years to recover from that war. There were no winners there, millions died, the country was in rubble, the economy ruined. That's not an ass kicking, it's a tragedy.