Does the US have more influence on the world then it did in '44?
Yes
Does the US have more influence on the world then it did in let's say '84?
No

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that 1944 is a terrible time to compare global influence, considering a certain war taking place at the time?

> sKoE )= wrote:

> Whats better 1917 or 1919?
The past 100 years have had some pretty rough times in certain parts of the world.

Granted, the past 100 years have kind of sucked.

But you've all picked THE WORST moment to use as a scale.

If I had to pick SOME year as a comparing point, it would be something in the 1950's, because there was relative peacetime.  But, essentially, this only shows that your "compare now to earlier" system is bad, because any particular date will have external events that mess with your comparison.

"A hyperpower or omnipower is a state that is militarily, economically, and technologically dominant on the world stage. The term was first used to describe the United States in the 1990s, but has also been applied (retroactively), to earlier entities such as the British Empire, the French Colonial Empire, Portuguese Empire, Spanish Empire and the Ottoman Empire. The Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, and Ancient Egypt are considered to have been examples of ancient hyperpowers."

"After the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, some political commentators felt that a new term was needed to describe the United States' position as the lone superpower. Ben Wattenberg coined the term "omnipower" in 1990 and Peregrine Worsthorne used the term "hyper-power" on June 8, 1991. French Foreign Minister Hubert V

> avogadro wrote:

> the past 100 years have far from sucked. the past 100 years have been the greatest in human history. no other century did we make such huge strides forward.

Stop taking my shit out of context!  I was only inferring that there have been a particularly high number of wars during the 20th century.  Jeez...

lmao

the USA is a superpower but one that is in slow decline & is by no means all powerful. just look at the Russia-Georgia War- the USA did nothing to back its ally.

the USSR collapsed not because of technology- it was due to economic stagnation, corrupt & incompetent communist management, poorly thought out reforms by Gorbachev which prompted the rise of nationalism in the various Soviet Republics- while Reagan supporters claim it was Reagan ratcheting up US defense spending that caused the collapse of the USSR the reality is that Soviet spending did not rise because it was already as high as it realistically could go.

the future superpower will be China. her defense spending is rocketing & her economy too.

> the future superpower will be China. her defense spending is rocketing & her economy too.

China definitely has a chance. Same to with a unified Korea.

> Wrong, educate yourself please.

Take your own advice please.

> the USA did nothing to back its ally

This is a very good point.

"Reagen says tear down this wall..... we better do it..... we dont want to piss him off....."

Reagan did want to confront the USSR as a foe instead of accepting the existence of a commie world indefinitely which was what the Democrats wanted

superpower schmooperpower.

Such discussions are playing with semantics.  The US was a superpower when it had almost sole worldwide military might.

Then along came the Russies in '49 and set off a rather large firework.   There was as someone rightly said, some sabre-rattling, combined with an awful lot of prattling.  Fast-forward a few decades and you have as many economic "geniuses" running Russia up until the late 80's as u have running our current financial markets.

The concept of a superpower is irrelevant in the face of nuclear weapons.  U can have as much cash as u want and as many sabres to rattle as u want.  As the US and others have known for decades now, all it takes is a small group of determined individuals and "influence" and "armies" are defunct - hello to September 11th.

China, China, China, China.  Wowee.  They've proved many times they don't give a flying monkies about the rest of us.  And why would they?  The longest running civilsation on the planet taking advice from puppies like the US?  I think not.

Everyone knows the US talks a lot of rubbish - always has, always will.  Their not alone granted, but bollox is bollox.

The difference between the 2 is that the rest of the world knows China can't be sweet-talked, whereas the US will take any amount of "aren't you guys just great, now show me the money" cos they just wanna be loved.  A rather pitiful trait, but glaringly obvious. 
It's only now they've come to realise that everyone just thinks they're opinions and knowledge of the rest of the world are as ill-founded as their sense of self-importance.

Don't get me wrong, I like the US and I like everyday Americans - having lived there for some time, I found hearts are generally in the right place.  It's the brain element that needs a bit of work.

"That aid gave us a sort of power over the European countries, and the lack of mainland US destruction gave us an economic advantage over Europe"

1st half definitely good point.  Last bit is the single largest failing of America's attitude towards Europe.  Europe isn't a single entity that acts in the same way as the "united" states.  The word united gives it away.
European countries barely agree on anything, be it logical or purely belligerence.  They couldn't even agree on the best things about it to put on the Euro notes for god's sake. They're like children with toys.

In no way, shape, or form will Europe in a standardised form, ever compete with any current world powers.  There is too much dislike, mistrust and antagonism.

It would be in the world's interest for such a thing to arise, but will never happen.

And anyway, who wants allies like like the French and Italians?  One became spineless 70 years ago and the other 1700 years ago.  There was more fight in Gandhi