Time to disband the United States of America?

Sleepy

LOL Voltwad, I'm sure if the UN could deal with it that FIFA would have no trouble!

It's not something I see as likely, just a though exercise really.

Moriarty

What have the romans ever done for us, eh?

Sleepy

I fail to see the relevance Moriarty. Sure, Ireland has benefitted from American investment (which was obviously a mutually beneficial arrangement or the companies wouldn't be here) but I'm not discussing this purely from an Irish perspective.

What has Americas done for the world recently? Well, let's see: helped destabilised the middle east, parts of Africa and South America; propped up dictators where it suits their corporate interests; invaded Afghanistan and Iraq without just cause or UN approval; ignored the Geneva convention; flown suspects they intend to torture through civilian airports throughout the world...

The main arguments for the disbandment imho are two-fold:

1. Most American's are not happy with the way they are governed believing their nation to be either too liberal or too conservative, more smaller nations would lead to more diversity of law, allowing 'Red' states to be countries with no gun control, abortion, gay marriage or separation of church and state if that's what they want and 'Blue' states to have all of those things if that's what they want.

2. 'Super Powers' are a threat to mankinds continued existence on this planet. They wield far too much influence in other nation's affairs purely because they're 'the biggest kid on the block' and can basically wipe out anyone that disagrees with them, even tell the UN to bugger off when it suits them. This is unacceptable imho.

Manic Moran

With reference to point #2 then, would you also suggest the 'disbandment' of China? It's not currently particularly throwing its military weight around, but it's an economic powerhouse right now, and it's working on the military.

If China is kindof fond of its national identity, what's the balance?

NTM

Sleepy

Look up the page Manic Moran, I stated as much in post 27.

China's mythified "million man army" seems terrify even the USA (and with good reason IMHO).

Manic Moran

My bad, so you did.

I'm not sure I like the idea of deliberately stifling bodies or disbanding them so that everyone is on an equally low footing, however. Can you imagine what would happen to our market economy if you tried doing that on a smaller scale? "Ah, that radio station network is too big. We must break them up so that they are at no great advantage compared to smaller stations."

NTM

Sleepy

We already do it in business. Microsoft's anti-trust case being one of the most famous examples. Another topical example being Ryanair's bid for Aer Lingus being decried by the Irish government who requested that the EU Competition Authority block the take-over.

And using your example of the media, would it really be a bad thing if Rupert Murdoch lost his stranglehold over the world's media?

Manic Moran

We only do to a point.

The idea is to avoid monopolies, but something being relatively large isn't a bad thing in itself, it is only a bad thing if nothing else exists to keep it in check. In the case of superpowers, one on its own could be worrisome, but a number of them means that there are some checks.

NTM

Sleepy

To continue the economics analogies what we currently have in world politics is an oligopoly. One or two powers being big enough to bully the rest into submission.

Being relatively large is one thing, France is a 'relatively' large country. The USA has a population of roughly five times of Frances circa 60m inhabitants. That's not relatively large, that's bloody enormous.

The raison d'etre of the UN is to prevent wars. To do this, it needs to be more powerful than the largest countries, which the US has shown it not to be. Lets face it, unless China or a coallition of virtually the rest of the world had stood up to Bush, the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were always going to happen (please note that I'm separating the actions of the current Administration from the will of what I hope are the majority of Americans who are educated/intelligent enough to understand international politics - I recognise the difference).

You say a number of super-powers means there are some checks. What are they exactly? America can't go to war if China dictates it and vice versa? Russia isn't the force it used to be so, in reallity, we're left with two super-powers. Both of whom have governments which have proven they can't be trusted to respect international law.

Moriarty

Sleepy wrote:

I fail to see the relevance Moriarty. Sure, Ireland has benefitted from American investment (which was obviously a mutually beneficial arrangement or the companies wouldn't be here) but I'm not discussing this purely from an Irish perspective.

What has Americas done for the world recently?

Oh lets list a few off the top of my head.. ensuring freedom of the seas for world trade.. guarenteeing western european security up until a few years ago.. massive funding for research into diseases which affect billions of the poorest people on the planet, not to mention more billions in aid.. massive relief operations in disaster-stricken parts of asia over the last number of years..

Sleepy wrote:

1. Most American's are not happy with the way they are governed believing their nation to be either too liberal or too conservative, more smaller nations would lead to more diversity of law, allowing 'Red' states to be countries with no gun control, abortion, gay marriage or separation of church and state if that's what they want and 'Blue' states to have all of those things if that's what they want.

Let's not beat around the bush here. You couldn't give much of a toss what the american public think. Your proposition is based around what you think would be best for your world. You'll find hardly any voices in any state you go to in the US looking for secession from the union. There are political differences in every country you go to, but this doesn't mean that we should give up trying, balkanise until we have the Free Republic of North Earl Street, and then wonder why no one listens to us and nothing works within our "government".

Sleepy wrote:

2. 'Super Powers' are a threat to mankinds continued existence on this planet. They wield far too much influence in other nation's affairs purely because they're 'the biggest kid on the block' and can basically wipe out anyone that disagrees with them, even tell the UN to bugger off when it suits them. This is unacceptable imho.

Bollox. I'm pretty sure the world would be far less stable with a couple of thousand mini-states as opposed to a handful of super powers. The larger and more prosperous a country, the more likely it will be governed in a fair and just manner. Comfortable, happy people rarely find the need to turn to extremisim of any sort.

Sleepy

Moriarty wrote:

Oh lets list a few off the top of my head.. ensuring freedom of the seas for world trade.. guarenteeing western european security up until a few years ago.. massive funding for research into diseases which affect billions of the poorest people on the planet, not to mention more billions in aid.. massive relief operations in disaster-stricken parts of asia over the last number of years..

Ensuring freedom of the seas? care to elaborate on that? I didn't know the Americans were the world's coast guard. And if so, why in the name of the spaghetti monster are they allowed to do so? Funding research is something any government should do and I'm sure it's been a sound economic investment for them and hasn't America been decried as one of the worst offenders for giving aid with pretty heavy strings attached?

Let's not beat around the bush here. You couldn't give much of a toss what the american public think. Your proposition is based around what you think would be best for your world. You'll find hardly any voices in any state you go to in the US looking for secession from the union. There are political differences in every country you go to, but this doesn't mean that we should give up trying, balkanise until we have the Free Republic of North Earl Street, and then wonder why no one listens to us and nothing works within our "government".

My proposition is based around what I think would be best for the world in general, why else would I propose it? Look at sorryeverybody.com, do those look like people who are happy to live in the US at the moment? I've already stated that I don't see the idea as being popular enough with Americans to ever happen, I mean, what group of people would give up the position of being able to do whatever the hell they like with no retribution? Does the fact that 295million people get to do whatever the hell they like regardless of the opinions of the other 5.7 billion sound right to you?

Bollox. I'm pretty sure the world would be far less stable with a couple of thousand mini-states as opposed to a handful of super powers. The larger and more prosperous a country, the more likely it will be governed in a fair and just manner. Comfortable, happy people rarely find the need to turn to extremisim of any sort.

Which would you prefer, a number of small skirmishes between countries or a global war? Don't you think less people would die were Iowa and Illinois to have a border dispute, Texas were to declare war on Iran while fighting a "war on terror", North Dakota attempt to annex parts of Canada, Guanxi to fall out with Hunan, Mexico to roll through Arizona's border etc. than if the US and China squared off?

Don't you think that your axiom "The larger and more prosperous a country, the more likely it will be governed in a fair and just manner" is a little simplistic and probably suffers from diminishing returns? Given that China is the largest country in the world (albeit a poor one) and has a horrendous record in terms of human rights, the United States has a pretty poor record in terms of distribution of wealth and Russia seems a pretty unpleasant place to live too. It seems to me that mid-sized countries seem to fare much better at governing fairly and justly.

Moriarty

Sleepy wrote:

Ensuring freedom of the seas? care to elaborate on that? I didn't know the Americans were the world's coast guard. And if so, why in the name of the spaghetti monster are they allowed to do so? Funding research is something any government should do and I'm sure it's been a sound economic investment for them and hasn't America been decried as one of the worst offenders for giving aid with pretty heavy strings attached?

Why are they allowed do so? Because they have the ability and good reasons for doing it, and the majority of other countries also agree with it. You asked what has the US ever done for the rest of the world, I've given you a handful of examples completely off the top of my head. There are many more. Myopic views are hardly the best on which to build a suggestion such as you've proposed.

Sleepy wrote:

My proposition is based around what I think would be best for the world in general, why else would I propose it? Look at sorryeverybody.com, do those look like people who are happy to live in the US at the moment? I've already stated that I don't see the idea as being popular enough with Americans to ever happen, I mean, what group of people would give up the position of being able to do whatever the hell they like with no retribution? Does the fact that 295million people get to do whatever the hell they like regardless of the opinions of the other 5.7 billion sound right to you?

Why else would you propose it? There's probably hundreds of legitimate answers to that revolving around various political persuasions. In such a large country there'll be a small minority supporting any cause you could pull out of a hat. Flat earth society, anyone? There's a cavernous distinction between being unhappy with who you elected into power, and wanting to balkanise your country. Hyperbole is hardly something useful on which to base such a radical proposition, either.

Sleepy wrote:

Which would you prefer, a number of small skirmishes between countries or a global war? Don't you think less people would die were Iowa and Illinois to have a border dispute, Texas were to declare war on Iran while fighting a "war on terror", North Dakota attempt to annex parts of Canada, Guanxi to fall out with Hunan, Mexico to roll through Arizona's border etc. than if the US and China squared off?

It's far more likely for minor powers to decide that war isn't such a bad thing after all. We had 40 years of peace in western europe throughout the cold war due to deterence, when the preceeding 60 years were the bloodiest in human history. I don't think that was coincedence.

Sleepy wrote:

Don't you think that your axiom "The larger and more prosperous a country, the more likely it will be governed in a fair and just manner" is a little simplistic and probably suffers from diminishing returns? Given that China is the largest country in the world (albeit a poor one) and has a horrendous record in terms of human rights, the United States has a pretty poor record in terms of distribution of wealth and Russia seems a pretty unpleasant place to live too. It seems to me that mid-sized countries seem to fare much better at governing fairly and justly.

Not really. Compare the China of today to the china of 20 years ago and it has vastly improved in how it treats its citizens and conducts itself on the international stage. That will continue apace due to the reforms put in the place and a growing middle class. I can only see China becoming much more stable over the next 20 years since it's going down it's present course.

Russia is in a pretty severe state of flux at the moment. It still hasn't come anywhere close to resolving the problems that surfaced after the collapse of the USSR. Using Russia as an example of how "big states are bad" is a fallacy, as it's a state in turmoil due to its previous enforced direction by the soviet party.

You've also lost sight of the EU which would seem to contradict your position.

RedPlanet

Moriarty wrote:

Oh lets list a few off the top of my head.. ensuring freedom of the seas for world trade.. guarenteeing western european security up until a few years ago.. massive funding for research into diseases which affect billions of the poorest people on the planet, not to mention more billions in aid.. massive relief operations in disaster-stricken parts of asia over the last number of years..

Ensuring the freedom of the seas?
What, can you elaborate on that?
During the Cold War years the Russians maintained a much larger naval fleet so i would suppose that infact it was they that protected us from chaos in International waters.
The yanks were out manned and out gunned in the water, and so pursued different military strengths, perhaps air superiority for example.
Now that the Cold War is supposedly over, the yanks possibly do maintain the largest naval fleet, however that hasn't been the case for very long.

Guaranteeing western europe security?
I'm not sure the Russian ever threatened western europe so i'm not sure what exactly the yanks were "guaranteeing", other than to ratchet up tensions to create a fairy tale enemy.

Funding research for diseases is normally done by the private sector in America, unless i'm mistaken.

But disaster Aid?
Again it's something that comes from the private sector in America.
The US government doesn't normally do "aid", rather "loans", which have strings attached.

Sleepy

Moriarty wrote:

Why are they allowed do so? Because they have the ability and good reasons for doing it, and the majority of other countries also agree with it. You asked what has the US ever done for the rest of the world, I've given you a handful of examples completely off the top of my head. There are many more. Myopic views are hardly the best on which to build a suggestion such as you've proposed.

Fair enough, I'm not trying to suggest that the US is some evil-overlord. I just question placing so much power into the hands of one country. If the world's oceans need policing, it should be a job for the UN imho.

Why else would you propose it? There's probably hundreds of legitimate answers to that revolving around various political persuasions. In such a large country there'll be a small minority supporting any cause you could pull out of a hat. Flat earth society, anyone? There's a cavernous distinction between being unhappy with who you elected into power, and wanting to balkanise your country. Hyperbole is hardly something useful on which to base such a radical proposition, either.

Why would I propose it? As I said in my OP, it was just an idea that floated into my head that I couldn't find many counter-arguments for and I thought I'd see if anyone else could provide some. I intended (and still intend) this to be a discussion of a theory rather than a heated debate.

Do you really see it as hyper-bole to suggest that America can get away with pretty much anything it likes? I mean, they've illegally invaded two sovereign nations in the last 5 years (allegedly committing war-crimes along the way) and have an internment camp in another country where they're holding people who have been denied POW status, haven't received a legal trial of any kind and if reports are to be believed are being tortured. Seems like a fairly hefty list of charges to me.

It's far more likely for minor powers to decide that war isn't such a bad thing after all. We had 40 years of peace in western europe throughout the cold war due to deterence, when the preceeding 60 years were the bloodiest in human history. I don't think that was coincedence.

A valid point and the first good argument for the existence of super-powers I've heard. This reasoning would support Manic Moran's assertion that a federalised Europe would be the way to go (as something of a moderate super-power, ideologically somewhere between the current two). Unfortunately, a fully federalised Europe would seem as unlikely as a 'balkanised' US.

Not really. Compare the China of today to the china of 20 years ago and it has vastly improved in how it treats its citizens and conducts itself on the international stage. That will continue apace due to the reforms put in the place and a growing middle class. I can only see China becoming much more stable over the next 20 years since it's going down it's present course.

Russia is in a pretty severe state of flux at the moment. It still hasn't come anywhere close to resolving the problems that surfaced after the collapse of the USSR. Using Russia as an example of how "big states are bad" is a fallacy, as it's a state in turmoil due to its previous enforced direction by the soviet party.

You haven't really pointed out any benefits to big states, nor discredited the argument that they've been (and still are) some of the worst offenders in terms of human rights etc.

You've also lost sight of the EU which would seem to contradict your position.

The EU isn't a country and I can't see it becoming one during my lifetime. I hope I'm wrong because I think Manic Moran may be right that a federalised Europe would be a good thing (if only as an extra deterrant to other nations from attacking us).

The one thing that's striking from your arguments is that it seems MAD was right: Mutually Assured Destruction really does seem to be the best argument for having super-powers. What a strange world.

Manic Moran

RedPlanet wrote:

Ensuring the freedom of the seas?
What, can you elaborate on that?

Well, they're currently engaging pirates off the Somali coast. (though any sort of a pirate shoots an RPG at a 6,000 ton cruiser which is hunting him is probably too stupid to last long). There was also the whole bit about US ships escorting tankers during the tanker war, though that probably was as much an issue of other countries getting a fringe benefit from American interests. But still, they benefitted. Didn't see many Russian warships trying it.

During the Cold War years the Russians maintained a much larger naval fleet so i would suppose that infact it was they that protected us from chaos in International waters.

I do recall that one famous incident of the Russian naval transport that dealt with a bunch of pirates a few years ago near Malaysia. The bodies were dumped overboard. However, I do question the bit about the Soviet navy being much larger than the US Navy. They had larger numbers of coastal vessels and submarines, neither of which does very much good for keeping sealanes open. When it comes to blue-water craft, I am at a loss to think of any category of ship which the US did not at any time seriously outnumber the USSR.

The yanks were out manned and out gunned in the water, and so pursued different military strengths, perhaps air superiority for example.
Now that the Cold War is supposedly over, the yanks possibly do maintain the largest naval fleet, however that hasn't been the case for very long.

Again, that curious statement. You have any particular year in mind, so I can go post the results? Two hundred Shershen class torpedo boats that don't often venture outside of territorial waters don't do a whole hell of a lot for International maritime safety. You want frigates and larger.

I'm not sure the Russian ever threatened western europe so i'm not sure what exactly the yanks were "guaranteeing", other than to ratchet up tensions to create a fairy tale enemy.

I think it was more an issue of the West not being particularly interested in taking a chance.

Funding research for diseases is normally done by the private sector in America, unless i'm mistaken.

A quick Googling shows the US Federal Government threw over $18bn at medical research in 1999. Not as much as the private sector, but hardly something to be sneezed at.

But disaster Aid?
Again it's something that comes from the private sector in America.
The US government doesn't normally do "aid", rather "loans", which have strings attached.

The US government does eat a fair bit of the private sector aid, as if I make any 'charitable contributions' I can then itemize deductions on my tax bill. It's a sort of 'matching contribution' thing: If I donate $100 to the American Red Cross which the ARC then sends to the Pacific (or whatever), the US Government refunds me just over $30. It's actually not a bad idea, because it basically means that the US Populace get to decide where a lot of the aid money goes to. In effect, when you read of an American private aid contribution, it's actually 2/3 private, 1/3 US Federal Government. This is in addition to any direct federal contributions.
A lot of the other expense is also eaten up directly by the federal government. All those helicopters flying around Pakistan after their earthquake, or the Pacific after the tsunami were paid for out of the DOD's operating budget.

NTM

BlitzKrieg

Sleepy how much do you know of the American Civil War?

wiki wrote:

A confederation may also consist of member states which, while temporarily pooling sovereignty in certain areas, are considered entirely sovereign and retain the right of secession.

Its an interesting note that while slavery has been made the defacto of the american civil war there are numerous other political elements, one of which was the desire of confederency to have the freedom to leave the united states if they so desire, now the reasoning to leave the US might be dubious (slavery), but it does raise the question if that political function had been made possible how much of the US would be unified today?

I believe the EU has something similar, in that it is wholey possible for any member state to remove themselves from the union (hence why its not a federation which Greenland did infact do in 1985.


On a side note, speaking of the American Civil War, am I the only one that finds it unsettling that its the only Civil War that seems justified? Any other country Civil Wars are seen a senseless violent periods which had no benefitial results (In Ireland it casted a very long shadow over Irish politics and life) while in the US, while a number of battles are remembered for their horrific casualties the war itself is looked at in a more positive light then any other country I know.

Hogmeister B

Sleepy wrote:

a federalised Europe would be a good thing (if only as an extra deterrant to other nations from attacking us).

Europe hasn't been attacked by an external power since the Mongols invaded Russia in the 1400s

ciaran2008

Come on people the USA will never break away into separate independent states! In fact it might interest you to know that it will actually be growing. . yes you heard me right! North American Union anyone??

Wikipedia:
The North American Union (abbreviated NAU) is a theoretical continental union of Canada, Mexico and the United States similar in structure to the European Union, sometimes including a common currency called the Amero.

With increasing dominance of the European Union, South American Union, African Union and Asian Union the USA does not have nor will they have any plans to break up! Federal government dominates in America (in regards to foreign policy anyway) and that’s the way it will remain!

oscarBravo

Necromancy bad.