Caesar it was cute, but we aren't dealing in the times of horses, clubs, shields, and other outdated weaponry. You must remember the story of Isabella in the late 15th century in the area of Mantua. Well I'll try and give you a quick sum. Many things changed but Mantua survived 100 years after her death and it's wealth and sovereignty stayed intact. And this was way back then. While they weren't a superpower they still managed to remain, in between the other European powers fighting all the time. How long has the USA been the worlds superpower? There is still plenty of time for the USA to remain the one and only superpower. That is unless President Bush breaks the world and the Hoover Dam.
My point was that just because a state is much more technologically advanced than those around it, and wields a huge amount of political and military power, doesn't mean it's immune to a relatively speedy downfall if the conditions suit it. Of course, that doesn't mean it's likely, but it does mean that there's no reason to be completely dismissive of the concept. That's got to be the most piss-poor analogy I've seen for a long time.
Return of Europe as superpower Return of Europe listen: Media Player, Real Player, Quicktime points made..... *EU has a better standard of living *EU is already slowly controlling US *EU is the worlds largest market *EU will play major part in global affairs simply though "deplomacy" rather than "military". (which will be done when they have a join foreign policy) *EU will continue to get stronger What do you think of this guys argument? Or does he tell us something we already know?
Caesar, By chance, was your analogy inspired by watching Oliver Stone's "Alexander"? Although not relevant to your analogy per se, in some ways, the war between Iran (aka Persia) and the West has never ceased. It has had its ebb and lows, the identity of the protagonists have changed, but the fight remains. Following Alexander (who in real history became an Iranophile), and after the the short-lived reign of his successors, the "West" was ruled by the Roman Empire, whose power was challenged and its eastern progress stopped by the Parthians and the Sasanids who ruled Iran. An interesting point is that the Parthians, though fighting the Romans, were heavily influenced by Hellenic culture. That led to first a revolution within the Parthian ranks that saw those who had been "too Hellenized" driven out of power. And, eventually, it culminated in the rise of the Sasanids who were chauvanistic and staunch defenders of the Persian past represented by the Achaemenids. After the Arab invasion, for a short time, the spirit of Iran was dimmed but it rose again, first capturing the essence of the Islamic caliphate during the Golden Age of Islam. Under the Abassids the caliphs were conciously copying Iranian traditions and Iranian influences again reigned supreme. In that period, the West was suffering through the so-called Dark Ages and was no immediate threat to Iran. Iran, in fact, did not have to confront the West per se until really the 19th century. Instead, between the 16th and 19th centuries, the challenge to Iran came from the Ottomon Turks, whose power and eastern expansion was again checked by Iran under the Safavids and later dynasties. In fact, to highlight the distinctions between these two "Islamic empires", Iranians rallied behind the shia banner of the Safavids. Again, in doing so, they were partly expressing their separate identity and their desire not to see it undermined. Not by Arabs, not by Turks, not by Europeans or anyone else. Iran was at its nadir in the 19th and 20th centuries. Having suffered disastrous defeats at the hands of the Russians in the 19th century, it was saved from Russian rule, as well as European colonial expansion, only by the rivalry between the Russians and the British. By the 20th century, Iranians recognized that they had genuinely fallen behind in not just military terms, but in other ways as well. The country went through a period of "forced Westernization" under the Pahlavis in the 20th century. Yet, that also brought its own reaction, among others in calls issued against the sins of "Westoxication" and culminating in the Iranian revolution in 1978-79. After the establishment of the Islamic Republic, however, Iranians eventually began feeling a threat to their identity from within: from the mullahs they had brought to power. That has led to a rise in anti-Islamic and anti-Arab sentiments, with many Iranians looking for a more authentic expression of their identity. Of course, in the meantime, they are also not keen on winning the battle against the mullahs, only to cede the fight to the Americans either. To be sure, poltical issues can't be expressed solely or adequately in socio-cultural terms. But that struggle to preserve Iran's separate identity and to defy threats to it has been a consistent "ideological motif" that has pervaded much Iran's history. Which is why, despite numerous invaders and numerous threats, Iran has not ceased to exist -- and the idea of Iran survives to this day, felt strongly among the Iranians. That "idea of Iran" can find a real peace with the "idea of America" that is truest to its own tradition and essence, but cannot find that peace if America is going to fall under neoconservative delusions of imperial power. For the Persians, if there is going to be an emperor, that emperor has to represent Iran. Otherwise, that emperor is merely a pretendor to the throne. BTW, throughout all these periods, the fight between Iran and the "other power" has taken place on Iran's periphery: as with the Romans, as well as the Ottomans, it has been about who controls Iraq? Who controls the Cacausus? Maybe history repeat itself once again?
BTW, I wanted to add that I am aware that Caesar's analogy could very well have been referring to the fall of the Roman Empire. But I wanted to make my own point!
Re: Return of Europe as superpower We'll see what happens when your birthrate and overly generous pension systems butt heads.
When the other ethnic groups start making the same move to China then maybe there's something more to it than just a short term blip up. But I don't see that happening anytime soon. Don't forget Israel people. Highly educated people, advanced technology, thriving economy, super strong military, a willingness to expand and dominate. A classic example of what Sun Tzu said, it's not the size of the country but the sharpness. And if Israel controls the Middle East one day, it will become plain to everyone it's a super power. With all due respect to IM, but for my money I'd bet on Israel before Iran.
Re: Return of Europe as superpower If the EU is already slowly controlling America then why can't I get Sky sports on the DIRECTV?
Re: Return of Europe as superpower I could switch it though, why can't I get Fox Sports in Europe? But though, I can pick up Al Zareehja or whatever it is. The only truly global news channel is BBC News and CNN International (1 European and 1 American) Although for some reason CNN International do not have news presenters or whatever you call them that have American accents. Media controls it's citizens of it's own country. That's were the power of media is. Someone watching a foreign news channel is not effected because people trust their own media first.
Re: Return of Europe as superpower I'd be far more inclined to trust the Beeb than I would Fox News Australia.
The EU is practically already a superpower, all it need to is to get it's member states to sign the new constitution and have a joint foreign policy. It already has an $11 trillion economy (bigger than USA) and is the worlds largest market. Military is overated, yippie the USA has a pumps billions into it's military. FACT - No one is ever gonna invade Britain, USA, France, China, Russia, India....you know why? Because these countries have nuclear capabilities. The USA spends loads on it's military, but all it can ever do is invade crap nations with none existant militaries, and even then it can only do that with an excuse (weapons of mass destruction / terrorism).
Did I say you were referring to me? I looked back at this thread and saw no one directly attacking anyone or trolling. So come up with the conclusion that if anyone's a troll it's you. Or maybe I have to read further back?