http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/07/25/8266603/index.htm Are we? Rocket River
I think this stuff goes in cycles. In the 80's the Japanese bought up all the real estate and we thought we would be United States of Japan, but that didn't happen.
We can't compete with the Irish. They sent millions of themselves over here. They're everywhere. And they're poised to strike.
Irish ARE everywhere and they s**k , as do the Trojans, Aggies, Buckeyes, Horns, Sooners and Gators.... Go Coogs! Go Rockets!
as a person of Irish descent, I'd like to point out that I'm not a fan of the golden domers. it bothered me as a kid that my family rooted so hard AGAINST a team called the Irish, though. it seemed really inconsistent to me.
We have the ingredients, but I don't think America's gunning for first. Size helps but it hasn't always determined a country's place in the world. Britain was much smaller than its rival continental powers and even the Netherlands had a Dutch Renaissance of their own. Some big characteristics in their success was their talented workbase, good class mobility, a culture driven to succeed, and good insight from their leaders on where the world was heading. My worst fear is should America decline, they won't leave the stage and heavily rely upon their military to force international policy.
I think a lot of our schools waste a lot of their time trying to dicipline the kids, which doesn't get done at home. I was thinking about my time in school, as a kid. There were so many students that just don't give a hoot, and didn't realize that their future was just around the corner........literally for some.
Some have argued that's already under way in anticipation of our ever declining position in the world vis-a-vis other rising powers (EU, China, Russia, India, etc.) One of the 'theories' surrounding the Iraq war was that the U.S. neocons planned to establish a strong and permanent military presence in the region via Iraq to attempt and gain 'leverage' over friend and foe alike in terms of controlling the world's energy supply, most of which of course is in that part of the world. For me personally, I buy into that argument because it just makes geostrategic sense. I can see the rise of Islamism in the region and I see our lawmakers struggling to formulate an appropriate 'response' to safeguard our energy supplies. There is no 'evil' intent involved here, it's merely a matter of positioning ourselves favorably to respond to rising threats, or at least what the people in power today consider to be a rising threat. Now, the Iraq war? A complete and utter strategic disaster. It was a major miscalculation on the part of the current administration and one that will likely haunt us AND our regional allies for the foreseeable future; it will be the curse that will keep on giving. So while I think the intent was good (as in strengthening U.S. presence and leverage in the region) the methodology was wrong. Oh, and in case anyone is wondering, I am not anti-war. I try to avoid taking a 'simplistic' stance on most topics. While some things are 'black and white', about 99.9% of us live our lives in that 'gray zone'.
It's true. My wife and I both have some Irish in us, although she has much more. Her maiden name had an "O" before it, originally. She's half Dutch, and at least a quarter Irish. (her uncle is a Catholic priest in Philadelphia, with a trace of an Irish accent) Just curious... I wonder how many Americans have at least some Irish in them?
First off, I enjoy reading the articles you post, and I respect your sense in foreign policy. I think there were some neocons who actually believed their plan would be the best way to spread democracy more than dominating the oil supply itself. But as to whether that was a bonus or their real intent, who knows. The New American Century is off to a rocky start. As for me, my attitude my not be the best in a leader who's proactively gunning for first. For Iraq, I think withdrawal and redeployment with a wait and see military attitude would be the best solution right now. I just don't believe losing the Iraq front will exacerbate terrorism at home. So in the case of losing our preeminent international position, I don't really care. I'd be more concerned about rebuilding infrastructure and securing the home front. I think the neocons and those who are desperately acting to preserve America's position believe too strongly that once America loses its position then it's gone. There is a multiplier effect for being on top. We're allowed to spend and borrow beyond our means because our currency is the most widely held. As long as the oil cartel trades in dollars, that trend will keep. Another advantage is that we can also afford a large military that doesn't need to exceed 5% of our GDP. Furthermore, our college system has been worldclass partly because of our standard of living and the best of other countries want to learn here. All of this and our way of life would change if we drop, and that is a legitimate concern. But what troubles me is that they're acting in a way that mortgages our future for our future, if that makes any sense. Anyone with a history book knows that empires come and go, and when they go down fighting, they stay down for a long time. And just because I wouldn't force our way to first doesn't mean I wouldn't want to be first with other means. We do have the ingredients unless someone ruins it for the rest of us.
There is an easy defense to it. When you see the drunken mob staggering to the building, throw them a case of whisky.
I share your concerns, and I do agree we will always be relevant on the global stage in one way or another, but our current leadership is adamant about maintaining the 'status quo', which sometimes means extending the empire to preempt the rising influence of China, Russia and the EU on the global stage. It's a chess match, and with Iraq we made the wrong move, there is no question about it. I am not sure if Iraq is salvageable, but I don't think we can leave just yet, at least not before making sure that the country has a 'strongman' to keep it intact. The best outcome we can hope for in Iraq is basically the current Lebanese model: a weak central government and a country more or less divided along ethnic lines, with the various ethnic groups peacefully co-existing (for the most part) and generally minding their own business.
Rhester I bet you just loved the true story of the San Partricio Brigade,. You know the movie One Man's Hero with Tom Berrenger, in which the recently arrived Irish were "recruited" off the docks of Boston and NYC to fight the Mexicians in the Mexican -American War. When they discovered that the Mexicians were Catholics and all their officers were Prostestants they switched sides to fight with the Catholics. The Mexicans as we know lost the war and the poor San Partricios were not treated as Mexican soldiers when captured, but traitors from the USA and hanged.
Our schools aren't so bad compared to the rest of the world. The stats are deceiving because other countries don't have thousands upon thousands of students who don't speak the native language in their own countries. Of course the literacy rate is lower, and of course students who can't read english don't do well on standardized tests. Globalization will does 2 things simultaneously. It will undoubtably make us richer relative to how rich we are now because countries in the world will specialize in the resources they are more abundant and efficient in, making more stuff for a lower price. However, it will likewise make America poorer in relation to the rest of the world. As third world countries develop industry and approach us, all of a sudden we don't have a a stranglehold on all the riches in the world. What it will also do is make the world a safer, better place. Countries don't go to war with their trading buddies, because doing so requires them to shoot themselves in the foot in order to hurt the other side. Protectionism is what causes war, because it allows 2 bit dictators to come to power who screw with world affairs.
