Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
While I find the cold war debate on who should be the next super power should America collapse to debt burden (Italy never collapsed due to excess debt and that's Italy!), which argument implied that there needs to be a third party in "reins" of things in the world? Is this simply a "because we right now provide justice for the world someone needs to, in the future too, but hopefully not the bad guys" -claim or is there some logic to actually back it up? Some people might be inclined to argue, in a similar fashion, that the presence of a "super power that has taken the reins" is actually derogatory rather than beneficial to how things fare at large.
|
I don't believe that super-powers are super-powers in orde to provide justice for the world.
However, the U. S. is (or perhaps has) abdicating the role. It is becoming increasingly clear that the U. S. has neither the resources nor the will to intervene in all of the hot spots on the globe. I don't know if any other country truly has the resources or the will to intervene. However, it seems likely that someone will try. If it turns out to be Russia or China, the results might be worse than those screw ups master minded by the U. S.
I worry.