If the world isolated the US, could this lead to its collapse?

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

I didn't say they were benevolent, I said they couldn't do it worldwide.

In current day an age, power can be projected worldwide by any nation possessing aircraft carriers against any nation which isn't able to counter that power projection alone or with the help of allies.

Additionally, from an ethical perspective there is no difference whether a country intervenes in its neighbors affairs or in the affairs of a distant country.
One shouldn't consider it acceptable if it was Germany who invaded China, and Japan who invaded Poland, but consider it somehow acceptable if they're invading their neighbors.

Yes I have but I also heard that China is willing to share it with its neighbors plus..... it is China's anyways......

Why would they be sharing something with their neighbors which they have been claiming as their own for decades. It could be out of the goodness of their heart, or it could be due to Obama's "pivot to Asia" strategy, as well as the fact that they US is sometimes picky with whom they cooperate and that one country involved in this struggle, Philippines, has a president, Duterte, who seems to prefer authoritarian rule, and is thus somewhat opposed to the US.

I'm sorry but what is the difference between the West and China? What is the difference between what the 2 are doing in Africa? At least the Chinese are building them up and I'm sure those African nations knew the risk plus nothing is free, they engaged in deals after all.

I have no problem with them being indebted to China or the West, it's their decision. I was simply stating that China isn't there on a humanitarian tour, building up countries because it sees the suffering of the people but to acquire resources.

Okay..... if Russia is so evil, why hasn't the world stopped it then?

Your words, not mine. You claim that countries can be evil and want to punish US due what they did to natives, I merely informed you that US geopolitical enemies have done the same.
If current countries must be punished for the crimes of their of Victorian era governments, what about Medieval era? Should Mongolia be punished for its crimes against the Chinese, Persians and Russians?

Russian government has a certain view of the World, they think if some small country on their borders considers having an independent foreign or economic policy, to which they are entitled under international law, that means Russia is weak, pathetic, and its people humiliated. The same goes for China and many others. Does that mean they're evil?
No, it means they should abandon outdated 19th centuries notions of spheres of influence. The US sometimes has similar reactions to independent behavior of some countries, and they're often accompanied by France and Britain in expressing them, however those are generally justified to the public by complicated multilateral relations and security issues, instead of "rightful sphere of influence".

"Oh, you are anti-US? You are anti-Western? You must be a dirty, communist, dictator loving, fool!"

I was describing the reasoning of western forum members who'd prefer US hegemony to Chinese one, not your own reasoning why you'd prefer someone else instead of the US.

The argument is that it is easier to deal with a government which has to factor in domestic public opinion when dealing with other countries as opposed to an authoritarian governments where any opposition to government foreign policy equals treason and where all opponents are labeled foreign agents.

Also when it suits them, the Chinese can behave like the US, they too supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, due to Sino-Soviet split, and they, just like the US, didn't really think what will happen to the people there once those, shall we say, not quite culturally tolerant folks got to power.

[fkizz]

It all boils down to US-China-Russia trium virate managing decent relations that don't require proxy wars, or at least less of them.

Then there's US's NATO allies. Not a hegemon, but NATO allies could make a difference in a conflict of Russia v US or China v US, if NATO allies defected to Chinese or Russian side.

[NorseThing]

Even Napoleon did not believe the Continental system blockade of English goods was going to be sufficient to bring England to its knees.

I actually think the USA would be better off if another currency was more widely used rather than the US $. However, there is no real option. One widely used currency avoids the world breaking down into a barter system which would hurt everyone. I know, we had gold before many nations opted out of a gold standard. That pretty much proves the point though. Basing world trade on a single commodity is simply a barter system once removed.

The rest of the opening post is nonsensical, at best.

[conon394]

I actually think the USA would be better off if another currency was more widely used rather than the US $.

It would certainly help the USA at this point. But of course between Greece et al and Brexit the Euro is not looking like a winner and I doubt Germany would like the results of the Europe becoming the premier reserve currency and primary trade method one. China OK zero transparency and good luck really understanding how much state debt there is that economy. Yen Swiss Pound what none of those economies can sustain that demand.

[dogukan]

In addition: China not only does not even have an open capital market, their population is too poor to accumulate savings or build financial debt. As an export dependent economy they are faaaaaaar from being an economy that can liquidfy global system. They wont be able to transform that system soon either.

People want to present china as a potential superpower a little too soon. They might become a sort of pole of their own, but they are far from being independent of american system. If anything, due to its sheer scale, it stands the MOST to lose from collapse of the american system.
Not to mention all the dollar reserves they ve accumulated precisely for this reason.

And it is a bit back to basics, but they really are in a vulnerable geographic position unlike USA with an impending demographic catastrophe.

Unless central asia and africa can become consumer hubs in a very short time able to absorb chinese exports enough for china to transform the structure of its economy before their window of opp closes, they have A LOT to worry about.




Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

[Whitey McKnightey]

It takes two to tango, the years of death and suffering over the past 70 years is due to America and Russia continuing the "Great Game" started by Britain and Russia back in the 19th century (can be argued it started as early as the late 17th.

Highly debatable. Most of the U.S. created violence and suffering in Latin America alone had nothing to do with the Russians. Yanks didn't want to see strong, independent nations develop so they painted every attempt at even moderate economic nationalism as Soviet funded Communism, pretended there was some actual "great game" type thing going on, and then ran amok through the whole continent. Soviet Union only really got interested in Cuba once socialism had already been established, but communism was a completely irrelevant political force in Latin America until the U.S. messed things up to the point the commies were the last ones with the cojones to stand up to them.

I'm not saying that Russian foreign policy is a great humanitarian endeavour guided by saintly virtue, but 70 years is a long period, and especially in the Cold War period there's a clear aggressor. Even if you count in the iron rule of Eastern Europe, there's no comparing the Russian foreign policy to the brutality the U.S. unleashed on the world. During Vietnam the hypocrisy reached such a crotesque level of nakedness that even George Kennan, the father of the containment strategy saw that the levels of aggression and meddling America is engaged in makes the Ruskies look like a bunch of hippies and the U.S. look like a crazed elephant that goes on a trampling rampage every time it sees a mouse.

With all that being said though, I don't see the current government of China or Russia behaving much differently if the tables were turned. I do believe a less violent and oppressive way of running the world is possible, but it would require a less corrupt and bloated, probably non-capitalist world hegemon.

Then there's US's NATO allies. Not a hegemon, but NATO allies could make a difference in a conflict of Russia v US or China v US, if NATO allies defected to Chinese or Russian side.

This would actually be the most likely outcome in my opinion. EU has already been making moves to make itself independent of Americans, and suggestions like Macrons EU army are only going to increase. I see little for the Europeans to gain in a U.S. - China conflict, other than staying neutral or siding with the Chinese in order to take the U.S. down a peg in the hopes of increasing the European prospects in the great power games.

[Just answer the question]

Most of the U.S. created violence and suffering in Latin America alone had nothing to do with the Russians. Yanks didn't want to see strong, independent nations develop so they painted every attempt at even moderate economic nationalism as Soviet funded Communism, pretended there was some actual "great game" type thing going on, and then ran amok through the whole continent.

Nope!

According to the majority here, America is not a saint but is better than all the superpowers out there. They claim that even though America....... makes mistakes, it also does a lot of good things and they hope that America continues to be a superpower.

America is not evil according to them.

This would actually be the most likely outcome in my opinion. EU has already been making moves to make itself independent of Americans, and suggestions like Macrons EU army are only going to increase. I see little for the Europeans to gain in a U.S. - China conflict, other than staying neutral or siding with the Chinese in order to take the U.S. down a peg in the hopes of increasing the European prospects in the great power games.

I hope so and I hope that will come true soon.

[conon394]

Nope!

According to the majority here, America is not a saint but is better than all the superpowers out there. They claim that even though America....... makes mistakes, it also does a lot of good things and they hope that America continues to be a superpower.

You never have created a poll to verify that. I general the weight of opinion was more that there have been worse Great Powers and that in general the USA has ac ted more less like all Great Powers. That it does good is a fact as much as it does bad. You never quantified that measure for the US or anyone else. Certainly its actions after the end of WW2 given the scale of power and freedom of action were restrained in historical perspective. Leading to...

America is not evil according to them.

Yep, and that any other Great Power will probably act the same, maybe worse given the track records of the likely contenders.

I hope so and I hope that will come true soon.

Given the state of the EU military spending, and the delightful mess of the debt crisis and Brexit its hard to see the EU acting as a great power anytime soon in truly coordinated fashion.