restore American leadership ?

[Xenomorgue]

Today, after winning the Kentucky primary, Hillary Clinton gave a speech in which she said that she wants to "restore America's leadership in the world".

Now what the hell is that supposed to mean?

The present day reality is that the EU is already economically stronger than the US; that China and India are quickly ascending industrial powers; and that Russia, Brazil and the Middle East hold the trumps when it comes to oil and other resources.

[sbando]

She can say whatever she wants, she won't run for president anyway. She lost months ago, she just can't quit.

If by "leadership" she means respect, then I think that's the goal of every candidate.

About the geo-political and economical leadership, we will see if the new President (and future presidents) will be able to mend the demages that the Bushes/Cheney/Rumsfeld gang has done along with their army of new born christian, neo-con yuppies.

[Camarillobrillo]

This words alone could mean anything so it's difficoult to say without knowing what the whole speach was about...

Anyway like Sbando just said you won't find out as the Presidential
run will be between Obama and McCain.


Ps.
In the "oil and other resources" bunch you forgot to add Venezuela...

[Xenomorgue]

Okay, let us suppose that a Chinese statesman makes a speech in which he states that "China is determined to take over leadership of the world".

Would that be any different?

[Camarillobrillo]

Okay, let us suppose that a Chinese statesman makes a speech in which he states that "China is determined to take over leadership of the world".

Would that be any different?

Again it depends on what subject the whole speech or at least that part of the speech was about...

Let's say the supposed Chinese stateman in that part of the speech was talking about
the Kyoto Protocol for air pollution and the renewable energies and he says
"China is determined to take over leadership of the world".

what does it mean then ??

The words "take over leadership of the world" outside of the context they were spoken could litterally mean anything...

Without knowing the whole speech there's no way to know what
Mrs. Clinton was actually talking about...

[STEMCELL]

We will never forget:
That icerock lady voted for the Iraq war. She has no credibility whatsoever.
Bill, fuck her big fat ass and lets hope she will keep her mouth shut up after that experience

[STEMCELL]

05/21/2008 10:20 AM
THOMAS FRIEDMAN
Imbalances of Power

It is hard to remember a time when more shifts in the global balance of power are happening at once -- with so few in America’s favor.

Instead of begging Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, President George W. Bush should be focusing on domestic solutions to the US's dependence on oil.
There has been much debate in this campaign about which of our enemies the next US president should deign to talk to. The real story, the next president may discover, though, is how few countries are waiting around for us to call. It is hard to remember a time when more shifts in the global balance of power are happening at once -- with so few in America’s favor.

Let’s start with the most profound one: More and more, I am convinced that the big foreign policy failure that will be pinned on this administration is not the failure to make Iraq work, as devastating as that has been. It will be one with much broader balance-of-power implications -- the failure after 9/11 to put in place an effective energy policy.

It baffles me that President Bush would rather go to Saudi Arabia twice in four months and beg the Saudi king for an oil price break than ask the American people to drive 55 miles an hour, buy more fuel-efficient cars or accept a carbon tax or gasoline tax that might actually help free us from, what he called, our “addiction to oil.”

The failure of Mr. Bush to fully mobilize the most powerful innovation engine in the world -- the US economy -- to produce a scalable alternative to oil has helped to fuel the rise of a collection of petro-authoritarian states -- from Russia to Venezuela to Iran -- that are reshaping global politics in their own image.

If this huge transfer of wealth to the petro-authoritarians continues, power will follow. According to Congressional testimony Wednesday by the energy expert Gal Luft, with oil at $200 a barrel, OPEC could “potentially buy Bank of America in one month worth of production, Apple computers in a week and General Motors in just 3 days.”

But that’s not all. Two compelling new books have just been published that describe two other big power shifts: “The Post-American World,” by Fareed Zakaria, the editor of Newsweek International, and “Superclass” by David Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment.

Mr. Zakaria’s central thesis is that while the US still has many unique assets, “the rise of the rest” -- the Chinas, the Indias, the Brazils and even smaller nonstate actors -- is creating a world where many other countries are slowly moving up to America’s level of economic clout and self-assertion, in every realm. “Today, India has 18 all-news channels of its own,” notes Zakaria. “And the perspectives they provide are very different from those you will get in the Western media. The rest now has the confidence to present its own narrative, where it is at the center.”

For too long, argues Zakaria, America has taken its many natural assets -- its research universities, free markets and diversity of human talent -- and assumed that they will always compensate for our low savings rate or absence of a health care system or any strategic plan to improve our competitiveness.

“That was fine in a world when a lot of other countries were not performing,” argues Zakaria, but now the best of the rest are running fast, working hard, saving well and thinking long term. “They have adopted our lessons and are playing our game,” he said. If we don’t fix our political system and start thinking strategically about how to improve our competitiveness, he added, “the US risks having its unique and advantageous position in the world erode as other countries rise.”

Mr. Rothkopf’s book argues that on many of the most critical issues of our time, the influence of all nation-states is waning, the system for addressing global issues among nation-states is more ineffective than ever, and therefore a power void is being created. This void is often being filled by a small group of players -- “the superclass” -- a new global elite, who are much better suited to operating on the global stage and influencing global outcomes than the vast majority of national political leaders.

Some of this new elite “are from business and finance,” says Rothkopf. “Some are members of a kind of shadow elite -- criminals and terrorists. Some are masters of new or traditional media; some are religious leaders, and a few are top officials of those governments that do have the ability to project their influence globally.”

The next president will have to manage these new rising states and these new rising individuals and networks, while wearing the straightjacket left in the Oval Office by Mr. Bush.

“Call it the triple deficit,” said Mr. Rothkopf. “A fiscal deficit that will soon have us choosing between rationed health care, sufficient education, adequate infrastructure and traditional levels of defense spending, a trade deficit that has us borrowing from our rivals to the point of real vulnerability, and a geopolitical deficit that is a legacy of Iraq, which may result in hesitancy to take strong stands where we must.”

The first rule of holes is when you’re in one, stop digging. When you’re in three, bring a lot of shovels.

URL:

* http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,554479,00.html

[Camarillobrillo]

Here's the text for that small part from a previous speech of the Clinton girl...
Funny the things you can say during a presidential campaign

"It's time for a new vision for America's future. As president, I'll set four big goals for our country - and I won't rest until we achieve them.

First, I'll restore America's leadership in the world by ending the war in Iraq and sending distinguished Americans of both parties around the world with a new message: The era of cowboy diplomacy is over.

Second, I'll work to rebuild the middle class by investing in clean energy and creating millions of new jobs, passing universal health care and ensuring that Social Security is rock solid for generations to come.

Third, I'll reform our government: no more cronyism and no-bid contracts - and we'll appoint qualified people to positions of power again.

Finally, we'll reclaim the future for our children. That means providing the education they need, from universal pre-kindergarten to affordable college. And we'll promote scientific innovation - including stem-cell research - so that our children can benefit from cures, discoveries and technologies that we couldn't even dream of today.

I'm grateful to all of the Iowans who are supporting my campaign. And I hope that many more of you will join me and caucus for me. I hope you will stand up for me for one night so I can stand up for you every day in the White House. Together, we can build the future our children and grandchildren deserve.

Sen. HILLARY CLINTON of New York is seeking the Democratic nomination for president."

[Xenomorgue]

American politicians are fond of making aggressive statements to show that they are the true masters of this world. They also like to make derogatory statements about other countries, mostly their enemies but sometimes even their allies. Bush has talked about "the axis of evil" and about regimes that support terrorism. The regime in Iran has been compared to Nazi Germany. McCain hummed "bomb bomb bomb... bomb Iran" which was considered funny by the American audience. Clinton has said that if Iran attacks Israel, then the USA should annihilate Iran. And now Clinton says she wants to restore America's leadership in the world.

Of course these statements are made to please the --largely xenophobic-- American audience. Sadly Americans expect their politicians to make such insensitive remarks.

Interestingly if a politician of another country says something similar the Americans are the first to complain and demand apologies. There may also be stronger repercussions (trade embargo, covert actions).

And Europe? Europe silently accepts all the American crap talk.

Well, I am glad the American hegemony is finally coming to an end.

[Nihilist]

Baffled!

Firstly, the US only has 0.9% of the worlds total population. It is actually not quite as important as it believes it is.

Secondly, who are the US allies again? If you mean the UK for example then their alliance extends only to a few old grey duffers sat on green chairs screwing up the UK economy in the houses of parliament. It most certainly does not mean the people of the UK who believe the Iraq war was totally wrong and do not support this action.

What leadership did the US ever have of the world? They are just like substitutes who get involved late on in the game and then claim they are hero's. If the US wishes to gain respect in the world then they need to fix their green issues immediately, withdraw their troops from foreign lands and stop creating more war by adding missile systems all over Europe. Politely put, its called "minding ones own business".

China would never make that kind of comment. China may be regimented and under communist rule but what trouble have they caused the world in the last 100 years. Answer is none. What trouble has the democratic peace loving countries caused in the world over the last 100 years... Answer is "do they ever stop causing trouble!".

Anyway, China would say it in Chinglish so it would be more like "The world, leadership want we!"

[az]

What trouble has China caused in the last hundred years? Are you joking?...Tiawan...Korea...Viet Nam...Cambodia...Thailand...Myanmar...and maybe you've heard of a small country called Tibet? And of course there was never any slaughter at Tienimen square.

[Nihilist]

Fortunately, I am not from the US therefore have some knowledge of geography. However, I have never heard of a small country called Tibet! I have heard of a region in north of China called Tibet though which is not actually a country! Did you mean that one? The one partially owned also by India. It has not actually existed as a country since 1959 and was occupied by China in 1950. In 1911 it was also occupied by the British (as was most of Asia).

Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea etc are however good examples of wars that China has been involved in but they are also mostly right on China's borders. Most of those battles were disputes between neighbouring countries.

Now, the US, Britain and allies have been involved in (just the majors as thats enough and I dont want to bog down the database of this site, hehe). World War I, World War II, Cold War, Vietnam War, Korean War, Bosnia, Falklands, Iraq x2, Afghanistan, etc.

Hardly neighbouring countries! Its always easier to point the finger than to look in the mirror.

[Nihilist]

However, I agree that Tiananmen Square was an attrocity. It should never be forgotten!

The west are also responsible for similar attrocities but they are usually classified as "false flag" missions or, friendly fire!

[az]

I'm not pointing the finger just defending my homeland's reputation from elitists that really never project out how history would have played out if certain countries had not made certain moves through history.
If not for the U.S. we certainly wouldn't be conversing on this forum but then again the Nazis could be making some much more eloborate caviar movies than they make now.
The native Americans sure weren't going to develope into a super power so the next country to land here would have colonized them as well. Maybe the Russian via Alaska down the California coast. Then would the bolshivicks have made all of North America communist? If that happens then who wins the cold war and frees all the Eurobabes to make the movies that inspire this forum.
Is Europe still naive enough to think that the Muslims don't want to immigrate into your countries and breed you out of existance? It's happening...look at Holland, look at France.
Is the U.S. perfect? Of course not. Are it's policies dictated by mega rich money people from...you guessed it Europe? I think so.
Lot's of people hate the police but it sure is nice to have them around when you need them.

[Nihilist]

Agree on some points.

Although you are aware that the US only became involved in World War II on December 9th 1941, when the actual war began in September 1939. The day that Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, the United Kingdom immediately declared war on Japan. Pity, the US took 2 years to get involved as I believe this would have saved many lives!

I also believe the war would have been won regardless by the Russians anyway who were allies at that time of the United Kingdom.

Also, the UK brought with them Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, South Africa, who were members of the British Commonwealth (I will add that the British also treated many of those Commonwealth fighters extremely badly sending them in to be killed in waves).

The War was not won by one country and infact there were really no winners. I have read before that Germany did not want Britain to become involved in the war due to the Commonwealth nations.

Many of my family were killed in World War II, so I have some grasp on what happened (my Grandfather was actually shot in combat, and was then being transported in a red cross truck, where he was shot again and died). My uncle was one of the drivers in the Royal Navy who took the troops onto the D-Day beaches in the landing crafts (as made famous in Saving Private Ryan). I also live not far from Coventry which suffered one of the largest bombing attacks of the war.

Terrorism also did not start in 2001. The PIRA (Provisional IRA) had been attacking the UK mainland and Northern Ireland since 1969. In the same way ETA has been attacking Spain for decades. PIRA was also mainly financed by the US! A good friend of mine was from Belfast and in the UDA/UFF and was killed in the troubles over there. Spain and the UK have been involved in their own personal war against terror for decades.

I still fail to see any reason for the assault on Iraq though. They did things different to the democratic west but did that really give us the right to "police" them.

Afghanistan and Al Qaeda are westernised problems created by the west. Covertly sending in the SAS and CIA to assist and train the Afghan mujahadeen in the Russian invasion during the Cold War was a mistake which created Al Qaeda. At the time of the Russian invasion OBL was the US's new best mate!

Our concentration should not be on the middle east (a self created problem by assisting in the creation of Israel and training of the Mujahadeen) and should be on the suffering going on in Africa. In the DRC for example the LRA are systematically kidnapping and training soldiers as young as 8 years old, forcing them to kill their own parents and then using them as a front line force. Over 2 million people have been killed in the violence in that one country alone and yet it does not even make the news! The amount of people killed in the Israel troubles since 1950 until now is about the same as the amount of people killed weekly in the DRC.

Oops, forgot. the LRA supplies a critical component for mobile phones so its all okay isn't it. So long as we get our nice shiny new Nokia or iPhone, who gives a damn about how many die!!..

I am not really an elitist, I am a realist who sees the world as it is and wishes it was different. Am I worried about those in Africa who have their limbs gollocked off to stop them working or who's sisters are cooked alive and eaten by Rebel forces? Yes!

Yeah, I do often wonder what the world would be like if we had lost the second world war!