well, yeah, "conservative vs. liberal" is over-simplified, there is also libertarian and statist (or something like that.) So you end up with a x,v graph of where a person falls in their political tendancies. Why do seem so sure Obama is liberal? He hasn't legalized pot or anything like that...

Forget about America losing super power status, the smart money is on Humankind.  Man cannot live by Big Mac alone!  Our consumerist culture is turning vapid in it's own wake, and collapsing under its own weight.  We consume an outrageously disproportionate percentage (over 25%) of the worlds resources, yet we are less than 5% of the population.  World Watch

As Howard Beal (The Mad Prophet of the Airwaves) put it so eloquently; "All human beings are becoming humanoids. All over the world, not just in America. We're just getting there faster since we're the most advanced country."

The corporations of the world are the real future of our democracy (oligarchy): Globalist View of Corporate States

Our educational system is designed to turn out isatiatiable consmers; the truth about the invasion of the body snatchers: Nation of Educated Idiots

So screw China, it's the multinational corporations you need to worry about.

"Ney, Ney, 'tis the fruit of the id to trounce the spoken for the heard."

The concurrent spread of the hyperreal through the media and the collapse of liberal and Marxist politics as the master narratives, deprives the rational subject of its privileged access to truth. In an important sense individuals are no longer citizens, eager to maximise their civil rights, nor proletarians, anticipating the onset of communism. They are rather consumers, and hence the prey of objects as defined by the code.

Your conclusion comes from speculation, not history.

Until China and India become superpowers, you cannot claim that their actions represent a "modern shift" in superpower behavior.

Obviously not. I don't think that anyone would argue that Obama is a centrist with respect to other American politicians.

US defense analysts disagree (although they might be motivated by the need to secure funding).

Well, with a hatred for consumerism and liking for phrases like 'collapsing under its own weight', you could be the next great pataphysician.

So taking political science or playing a video game makes you liberal? That makes no sense.

And the conservative party doesn't seem to be overly concerned with international security or economics... only blocking whatever the opposing party tries to achieve.

yeah, if you believe Rush Dimbaugh. Seriously, seems you are making a statement based of what the mass media says.

Nope. Correlation and causation and all that. Those groups just happen to be more liberal than not. (Going by the American spectrum.) The economics and international security comment was based on my personal experiences. Demographics might be different at other universities.

zig, I can tell you the only threat China poses is its sheer numbers. They have the numbers to over run us in a one on one fight. But as far as implementing technology with their fighting force. They would get their asses handed to them. We can strike them without having anyone in the area. We can hit them so hard and so fast with the type of technology we have and have coming out we'd be long gone before they came out of their daze.

Its a good thing when strategists say "oh their a threat" because its the only thing convincing Congress to continue funding national security projects. There has been a number of wars the US has been involved in in the past that we werent prepared for. Why? because we were cocky and assumed no one was a threat. We thought wrong and paid dearly for it on a number of occasions. Its better to be safe then sorry.

While I dont believe their the threat they are made out to be. I understand why theyre considered a threat. Because they have the potential to hurt us if we didnt go in prepared.

Your assuming occupation is out of the question because of its sheer size. And your wrong. Most of the population lives along the coast. Most of the inner countryside is desolate and hardly anyone lives out there. The US could just ignore everything other then the coast and still occupy the country of China.

Were still capable of a FULL victory. And not all wars require you to occupy something.

The country of China is assbackwards in how it runs its economy. The population is for the most part poor. While there are a few uber rich. This is how China has operated for millenia's and time and time again rebellion has refreshed the country but it always lands back in the same boat.

China is starting to catch up. But only in certian fields. It doesnt have the capacity to implement technology into its Military fully. And probably never will. China prides itself on size. Which means most of its own military funding is locked up in upkeep rather then expansion.

The US wins its wars because its finally realized that for its Armed Forces to be a true threat it has to be a threat at all times. Which means funding new projects that give the US the edge. The ColdWar is what brought this revelation about.

Vietnam was far more of a success then you might realize. The biggest reason for its downfall was public opinion. It was painted as a war of bloodshed (like wars before hand had never seen death) and that Soldiers were murdering villagers for the hell of it (it happened, but it wasnt the first time in war) WW2 saw entire cities flattened...cities meaning civilian populace. Meaning Civilian casualties. Civilians dying during war is nothing new, and can be seen all the way back to the first days of what we classify as War.

Afghanistan hasnt sapped us of any power. Infact its testing us and giving us the ability to adapt to a different form of guerilla warfare we werent expecting. This can only be good for our Armed Forces as it widens the scope of our troops adaptability and our use of technology.

What seems to people as sapping is how much money was spent. Because it was in the billions. But people forget that whats 1 Billion now was Millions 50+ years ago. Because the worth of money only increases with time. We think were spending WAY more money then ever before. Which is and isnt true.

Iraq hurt us, but only because currently only 1+ million of 300 million serve this nation. Making our ability to place our military might limited. But that came and gone. Iraq is now back in the hands of the Iraqis. Only 6 short years after invasion.

Because of the fierce fighting and antiinsurgency tactics and strategies developed and learned in Iraq. We can now turn back to Afghanistan and adjust them. The main reason Afghanistan has taken longer to overcome. Is because Iraq was so unpopular and pressure was far greater for us to resolve it.

People for the most part still believe Afghanistan is a good fight. So the pressure to succeed there like we did in Iraq isnt as high. While we want it to be over. We still remember why were there in the first place. Meaning were still willing to take our time with it. Unlike Iraq where we had no real clue why we were there. And wanted every reason to pull out.

I think that bickering over whether or not America is superior is a bit pointless. While we may be the most powerful country and our society covers the face of the Earth we need to realize that we are all Human Beings and that our religious, political, and territorial differences only divide us. We must unite to advance for only then can true progress be made. I understand the necessity to preserve a national identity, but greed cannot be a driving force in the policy of nations. A compromise can always be reached. Consider Korea. Greed drove its leaders to compete for total domination of the country. Greed drives corporations to outsell its competitors, greed drives countries to complain and bicker and fight over who owns what. While the desire to get ahead will always be a part of human nature, and has often proven so effective in developing new ideas and new technologies, it cannot be allowed to influence how others treat others, along with nationalism and extremism. I think that the United Nations is an excellent move towards this, as in the United States Congress in how it is divided. We still have a long ways to go but we have made excellent progress. Always remember that our species has always been divided on this planet into clans, into cities, into states, into nations but that we must reach out into the stars united or planet to planet, solar system to solar system wars will rage once more until we have left the galaxy a smoldering ruin of what it once was.

China is a far bigger long term threat as a peaceful nation than a active war monger.  Do the math, economically they win and we lose, a war would distrupt that.  As for occupation, America using WMDs to win are completely out of the question.  China's human resources are almost unlimited by comparison.

A possibly far greater threat than China is America losing much of its sovereignty to global government, the new world order, globaliztion or in other words change.  Change is America's greatest enemy.  Change is already proving to be too destructive in our current state of affairs with the inability to adapt to it both foreign and domestically.  This Change is not proving to be a Change for the better.

Criminy! I hope we won't be grilling up the genetically enhanced roos, that could turn real ugly.