posted on May, 6 2013 @ 12:45 AM
reply to post by deessell
You seem to equate destabilization to reduction of US influence in the region.
You say that you disagree with the above read of your position but you continue to reiterate the same assertion. Remember that the US was not even a
nation with any external influence before the end of WW1 and only rose to significance with WW2 and that due to the vacuum and opportunities that the
collapse of the previous world order originated. Note that it was not because of lack of trying, the US did mount several failed expeditionary sorties
(the war with Spain permitted the US to grab the Philipines and Cuba and cement its presence in the South Americas and we today all know how it
started) but until the end of WW2 it had been countered by other interests mainly the UK, Germany and Russia (before WW2, look to the history of China
to see the major powers in the region). In comparison to today the roles were reversed in the UK-US relation at best the US had expanded its influence
into South America and made some minor claims were it could (gun ship diplomacy, see Japan).
The more one analyzes things and learns how stuff works the more validity is there to the notion that the US planed for Japan to attack. The Japanese
army was heavily indoctrinated in UK and US academies (most like we saw latter with the dictatorships of South America or today with the Egypt's army
or to a degree all NATO members, shaping ideas, creating technological and political dependency and subverting allegiances). An economic study on the
relation between Japan and the US before the Japanese expansionism would make the move predictable and unavoidable.
If the US loses influence in the region then the balance of power will have to be adjusted.
It is not a matter of if, it already is declining, hence the new move towards the Pacific and the global realignment of power that has already started
and will terminate with the end of the petro-dollar, in fact the delay is being artificially managed by the Anglo.American interests the dollar (and
most of the Western economies) should already have collapsed and the currencies ought to have already shuffled the power structure in the world.
There is no avoidance possible to the rise of the BRICS (look for example to the less talked South Africa how it will take a major role on the African
region a role that it should have played long ago if not for the Anglo-American interference, the same is mostly valid for the rest. Brazil should
have a been a developed nation today and the fulcrum of South America if not for the mess the old powers created in the region...
I really do not see how Asia is much different, in fact there is no indication nor historical clue that China will go on any rampage. It could easy
already made much bigger moves, it could have annexed (in various degrees) Vietnam, Butan and Cambodia and many other regions using the same type of
tactics the US employs, even Indonesia (with their constant attack of Chinese citizens and interests). The fact is that China learned long ago that
it can not overextend and much of its attention must be focused in managing internal affairs or it will easily crumble. Before China can project any
strength it must yet make larger changes internally, from living standards to increased homogenization and move beyond its rule of fear to a rule of
internal recognized power and respect. What we will see at best is some demands for recognition and its place at the big table.
As for moral superiority I do not see the US having any, not even in comparison with China especially in dealings outside its borders. When (not if)
the US collapses so will all the international relevance of the UK be ended. The UK is moving toward a self created a corner. Australia is realizing
that it should consider its interests first (finally) like much of the Commonwealth.