WikiLeaks cables tell the story of an empire in decline

[MorningGlory]

America isn't in decline because of our foreign policy and neither our fiscal policy. America is in decline because of our Spiritual policy, plain and sim-ple. All the rest of the stuff is just a direct result.

The world is standing by and watching the decay and eventual fall of Western civilization. Meanwhile, most American's are either in denial or asleep, IMO.

I will agree that there is spiritual decline but must add that it's not only the west that is in decay; it's the entire world. And I do believe the nonchristian parts are far in advance of the rest of us.

[Guest shiloh357]

First of all, the existence of the US began by absorbing other nations such as the Lokota, Cherokee, Apache, Comanche, and a host of other smaller nations which were established before the Europeans came to these borders. A large portion of the land was actually bought by us from seemingly legitimate deals, although we rarely asked the current residents of those lands what they thought about the deals....but I will concede that the purchases were from the legal owners of the deeds.

While I don't defend those actions, and what was done was wrong, it does not come up with imperialism.

During it's history, the US has also absorbed existing nations only to release the land once we replaced the existing governments with ones more accepting of US interests.

Which is the opposite of imperialism. What are describing is occupation, not imperialism.

The US works in ways it believes to be in it's own best interest, and does seek to be able to project it's power to influence world events as it sees fit.

Yeah, but all major nations do that. That hardly qualifes all of them to be empires.

So is the US an "empire"? Not in the classic sense, but definitely in a more modern sense where we have created newer rules for the game. Instead of absorbing, we create the illusion of autonomy, albeit somewhat forced.

Sorry, but I can't buy into your new "modern" sense of what constitutes an empire. Flexing our muscles and pursuing our interests is not imperialistic. We might be a bully, but we are not imperialistic.

[nebula]

I think we're crossing hairs on schematics rather than looking at the heart of the issue of the article.

Whatever you want to label the USA as, its power and influence seems to be declining. And the current leader with his apology tour only made matters worse.

[Rick-Parker]

I don't need leaked documents to tell me this nation is on the decline. It is obvious, and it is a direct result of over borrowing and over spending. We can turn things around, but it will require making a lot of tough decisions I am not sure the government officials are willing to make.

Nor the majority of the people. Not if it cuts into their "piece of the pie."

[sheya joie]

If Texas is on Ted's list, shouldn't Hawaii be as well?

[ted]

First of all, the existence of the US began by absorbing other nations such as the Lokota, Cherokee, Apache, Comanche, and a host of other smaller nations which were established before the Europeans came to these borders. A large portion of the land was actually bought by us from seemingly legitimate deals, although we rarely asked the current residents of those lands what they thought about the deals....but I will concede that the purchases were from the legal owners of the deeds.

While I don't defend those actions, and what was done was wrong, it does not come up with imperialism.

During it's history, the US has also absorbed existing nations only to release the land once we replaced the existing governments with ones more accepting of US interests.

Which is the opposite of imperialism. What are describing is occupation, not imperialism.

The US works in ways it believes to be in it's own best interest, and does seek to be able to project it's power to influence world events as it sees fit.

Yeah, but all major nations do that. That hardly qualifes all of them to be empires.

So is the US an "empire"? Not in the classic sense, but definitely in a more modern sense where we have created newer rules for the game. Instead of absorbing, we create the illusion of autonomy, albeit somewhat forced.

Sorry, but I can't buy into your new "modern" sense of what constitutes an empire. Flexing our muscles and pursuing our interests is not imperialistic. We might be a bully, but we are not imperialistic.

Thanks for the insights.

I disagree, although I see your points. The new "modern" sense is not of my making, it's just how the US has been reinventing the wheel as it applies to how we want to create environments friendly to our interests. Instead of absorbing and claiming ground absolutely, we take ground, install political and military systems which we believe won't turn on us, and then seemingly leave them to their own devices. However, there is no doubt that we will not hesitate to go back in and whip them back into shape if we so desire should they buck the system (the system being US interests in the region). While it seems on the surface that a nation affected by these actions retain autonomy, there is no doubt that the US is controlling things. In that sense, I form my opinion that there is little difference between a classic empire and how we practice the art today. Only the name of the game has been changed to protect the guilty.

Only in the past 50 years or so are we realizing that we are somewhat over-stretched and it's forcing us to re-evaluate just where it is we can afford to stand our ground. Financial interests (which really is what it's all about in the first place) have to be constantly evaluated and the cost of retaining power in an area has to be bounced against the benefits of retaining them. It's turning out that we simply can't afford to be everywhere any longer.

The sad part is that once a decision is made to reduce our protective posture in an area, the only real losers are the native inhabitants of such places. One day it's vital to US interests to be in an area, the next it's not worth the cost. I'd have to be the one living with that decision, but in the end, that person gets to sleep at night comfortably, and the ones who are affected by it are suddenly in danger of their lives with little help from the US.

No one has to take my word for it though. Simply do a search on US Abandonment of Friendly Forces or something similar and see what you find.

As Neb pointed out, I'm probably just spitting hairs though. I'll concede that the US does not qualify as an "empire" in the classic sense (such as with Rome and Greece), but have been a part of too many operations to ever concede the fact that we don't operate in much the same manner and will, without a doubt, invade other nations with the intent of establishing political climates that have no choice but to dance to our music.

t.

[Guest shiloh357]

I disagree, although I see your points. The new "modern" sense is not of my making, it's just how the US has been reinventing the wheel as it applies to how we want to create environments friendly to our interests. Instead of absorbing and claiming ground absolutely, we take ground, install political and military systems which we believe won't turn on us, and then seemingly leave them to their own devices.

And who, besides you, is claiming that this is should be defined as imperialism?? You are describing what is known in modern geo-political speak as "military occupation." You may disagree, but I am presenting facts as they are.

I'll concede that the US does not qualify as an "empire" in the classic sense (such as with Rome and Greece), but have been a part of too many operations to ever concede the fact that we don't operate in much the same manner and will, without a doubt, invade other nations with the intent of establishing political climates that have no choice but to dance to our music.

I think you are the only one coming up with that definition of what an empire is.

So far, I cannot find anyone of greater authority making the claim that the US is engaging in imperialism. An empire, by every modern definition has certain characteristics that simply don't exist where the US is concerned. They are collection of nations that have been forcibly conquered and are ruled by a singular monarch known as an emperor. They are not autonomous and pay tax/tribute to the ruling entity.

[nebula]

Can we lay aside the "empire" the thing and focus on the point?

Are we losing our world power status?

That's the point.

[OneLight]

I do believe it is becoming more of a shared status, not just one country leading the world. This is the only way the future armies will unite under such circumstances that we see in prophecy.

[ted]

Can we lay aside the "empire" the thing and focus on the point?

Are we losing our world power status?

That's the point.

Aighty, no problem

Yes we are losing power, but that is of our own design. I'm separating "power" from something even more important on the world stage, and that is influence.

The fact that we can project power around the world in a very short time is still something we can do, although we have limited our ability to do so somewhat with a reduction of the military some 15 years ago or so. In that sense, our power has decreased, but not to a point where we are rendered dangerously ineffective...just yet.

More importantly is our loss of influence around the world. Even 25 years ago it would be unthinkable that anyone would suggest that the world economy would be based on anything other than the dollar. Today we see more and more nations dropping the dollar and adopting other currencies or using their own for their trading. The economic impact of that alone is enough to shake the foundations of our power and influence around the world. Once the dollar is dropped altogether in favor of another currency (either currently in use or one that is created in the future), we're toast.

Aside from the economic loss of influence, there is also a loss of what has been kind of a moral influence. I believe that there has been an active campaign to chip away at what was once a strong moral position that the US has enjoyed. Not only did we have the money and power to do good around the world in the form of disaster relief, foreign aid, and other causes, but we also were the example of independence and wholesome values- a place where hard work and fairness led to prosperity. God had given us an opportunity to do His work and blessed us richly with the resources to do so.

Somewhere along the way we lost track. At some point we began to slip. A slow, moral erosion crept in and it's taken root.

There came a time when it began to snowball into something that is now grown to be seemingly impossible to reverse. I have to ask myself: Has God removed His hand from us? Are we now running on our own power?

This is not to mean there are no decent folks left. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Millions of good people, who have a desire to see things back on track, are still present and ready to do what they can. But can they have any influence on something if God has withdrawn His support? I'm left asking myself if it's worth it, or am I only trying to patch holes in a sinking ship.

I don't know for sure if God has taken His hand away from America, and no one can know for sure, but it does seem like we are no longer under His protection doesn't it? Who could expect God to be with us if we (by we I mean the elected leadership) continue to act in a manner displeasing to Him? Do we honor our commitments to Him as a nation? Do we put God in front of every national decision? Do we honor Him in the laws we pass? In how we treat others in the world?

I'm hard pressed to find much by way of enacted legislation over the past 40 years or so that would please God.

Anyway, besides the spiritual nature of the subject, we also have to consider other factors. One is an active, collective campaign by other nations designed to knock us off our high horse. I'm sure it springs from many sources, but think of some of the obvious ones like China, Russia, Islam, etc. Does anyone think that they do their best to insure America remains strong? No, everything they do is designed to weaken us at every level- we're simply too stupid to see it, and the ones that do are so overwhelmed by sympathizers and spineless politicians who are beholden to foreign interests that their protests are swallowed up and left in the dust.

Aside from the active efforts from outside our borders, we also have an active force from within our borders working against us. Although there remains a significant number of citizens who wish that we could remain as is, there is an even more significant potion of our society that are active working to dismantle our power and influence around the world. Along with them come the fringe groups who care about nothing but their own interests, no matter the costs. There's good reason why it seems like we're being nailed from all directions....because it's true

We will not enjoy the good life for long, I'm afraid, and we better get used to the idea that we're going to have to fight to survive in a world that could care less about us in the near future.

The "why" of it all encompasses things we can only imagine. It could be that the rest of the world is simply tired of being left out of the prosperity we enjoy. It could be that natural greed is running rampant. It could be that these things just come and go in waves throughout history. Those are some of the most popular explanations anyway, but in reality, we're simply beginning to see what God has already written down for us.

I'm not sure exactly where we are in the time line, nor am I exactly sure where we all fit in this as Americans, but I am sure where we fit in as Christians. The time is short and there are many who are not saved, nor do they know the message of the Bible. While we fight and argue both on the world stage, and also right here on message boards, the events as described are unfolding before our eyes.

So yes, the US is losing power and influence around the world, without a doubt. I don't believe that much is even in question. There are many reasons for it, both self-inflicted and from what we face from abroad. The important thing is to think less in terms of national unity and more in terms of Christian unity.

t.