Originally posted by STANGwe dont care because most of us dont think there's anything to be concerned about. i couldn't care less if america is the head honcho in ten twenty fifty years. it's been said that a lack of superpower would make more wars, and that would be bad, but i dont see how not bombing pepole today will prevent pepole from being bombed in the futre. the wars we are fighting now are bad for their own sake, not for the wars they might cause to be fought later.
Seems the message to the world at least represented by RHP players is that the average American doesn't care.
on a contradictory note, we do care, we just arn't acting like it because we feel that your being a presumptious instigator.
on an in-apropus not, scince it was determined that Bush is leading in the polls, his administration has started drafting plans to invade Iran from millitary instilations currently being constructed in Iraq
Originally posted by STANGIt's a creative question but ultimately its myopic. Stang, your question implies that at some point in history that "fair and peaceful outcomes have been negotiated". If you can outline a period in the past 2000 years in which force or the threat of force was not ultimately the deciding factor in resolving conflict, I'd love to hear about it.
Alot of threads go off on tangents from the original topic. Please only use this thread to answer the question, now with clarifications, else go and play chess or have a cup of tea.
How much concern do American's have when allowing for the possibility that the balance of power is going to shift over the next 50 years whilst America continues to be perceiv ...[text shortened]... ing point, which presidential candidate is better for the longer term viability of the world ?
As to targeting American social or political perceptions, I think you're a bit off the mark there as well. Can you name a superpower in recorded history whose populace grasped the concept of their own eroding power base? Americans are no different than the British, the Romans, the Russians or the Chinese in that it would never occur to them that anyone within their sphere of social, political or military influence would not want to emulate them.
From a global perspective, I think you'll end up discovering that Kerry is really no different than Bush in his willingness to place American self-interest ahead of global co-operation. He'll just go about it in a different way.
As for eliminating fanaticism.... well.... good luck with that.