Log in

View Full Version : 10 Signs The U.S. Is Losing Its Influence In The Western Hemisphere



Rakhmetov
28th September 2010, 19:42
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/10-signs-the-us-is-losing-its-influence-in-the-western-hemisphere-535456.html?tickers=eem,ewz,fxi,eeb,jjm,^dji,xle

10 Signs The U.S. Is Losing Its Influence In The Western Hemisphere



http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/2/e1/2e1b402acb947aa11a604ba005d4c99b.jpeg

Provided by the Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/):
We won't be the alpha dog in the western hemisphere forever.
Even if the U.S. hadn't crashed into a financial crisis, there are demographic, material, and political forces that have been spreading power around the Americas for decades.
Brazil is first among the BRICs (Brazi, Russia, India, and China) -- four economies that are supposed to overtake the six largest Western economies by 2032.
Mexico is first among the MAVINS (Mexico, Australia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Nigeria, and South Africa) -- six economies we expect to blow away expectations and become leading powers in their regions relatively soon.
Canada and Venezuela are oil powers of the distant future.
Peru and Chile are sitting on a fortune of metals and minerals.
All these countries are cranking up, while America faces plenty of fiscal and demographic problems at home.

Here are Signs the U.S. Is Losing Its Influence In Its Own Backyard (http://www.businessinsider.com/15-signs-that-america-is-losing-control-of-the-western-hemisphere-2010-5#our-most-powerful-regional-ally-brazil-refuses-to-follow-our-orders-on-iran-1):
Our most powerful regional ally--Brazil--refuses to follow our orders on Iran
Hillary Clinton went to Brazil to beg support for sanctions against Iran and came away empty handed. Now the UN is counting on Brazil, which is friendly with America and Iran, to lead nuclear diplomacy.
The World's Richest Man is now a Mexican, not an American.
For the first time in 16 years, the World's Richest Man is not an American. Carlos Slim, worth $54 billion, is the first Latin American to hold that title and one of many emerging market billionaires to eclipse the U.S.
Three years after a US financial crisis, Latin America is again growing rapidly. The U.S.? Not so much...
Compare this to what happened during the Great Depression. Latin America was devastated when U.S. investment dried up and the export market soured in the 30s. A League of Nations report said Chile, Peru, and Bolivia suffered the world's worst depression.
Today is quite different. Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico have led a buoyant recovery from the global recession, according to Reuters. The regional economy is expected by the UN to grow 4.3 percent in 2010. If the American consumer remains weak, Latin American exports will move elsewhere.
Chile produces 300% more copper than America--the former world leader in copper production

America used to lead the world in copper production. We produced 49% of the world's copper in 1929, according to this article from the archives. (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9HYQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AJIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7204,165880&dq=copper+production&hl=en) Today we produced 1.2 million tonnes yearly, compared to 5.4 million tonnes in Chile.
Brazil now produces over four times as much iron ore as the U.S.. We used to lead that industry, too.
America once led the world in iron mining. In 1892 we discovered the world's largest mine at the Great Lakes Mesabi Range. It was a wellspring for America's industrial might and the foundation of the rust belt.
Now we claim reserves at 2,100 mt. Seven countries claim higher reserves, including Brazil at 8,900 mt. We produce only 54 mt yearly, while Brazil produces 250 mt.
Canada and Venezuela will pass the U.S. in oil production in the next decade
America produces around 9 million billion barrels of oil a day. Venezuela and Canada each produce around 3 million. But America's reserves are 21 billion barrels and may last less than a decade. Our oil-rich neighbors claim 99 billion bbl and 178 billion bbl, respectively, and will keep producing oil into the distant future.
Now Brazil exports over twice as much beef as we do
America used to lead the world in beef production. Although we still do, America exports only 800,000 mt of beef per year. Brazil exports 2,200,000 mt. Here's some ironic excerpts from a 1911 NYT article: "American-Canadian syndicate to have world's largest beef plant in Brazil... The chilled beef industry has never been tried before in Brazil and has only recently gotten under way in Argentina."
Brazil is now a critical partner for Russia, India, and China
The acronym coined by Goldman Sachs to describe the four key emerging powers has taken on a life of its own. Brazil, Russia, India, and China have held several summits and even discussed making a supranational currency -- that would pull the rug out from the U.S. dollar.
What's important here is that global emerging powers have good relations and are inclined to work together. For instance, China just signed major contracts to build factories and high-speed rail in Brazil.
Brazil, Canada, and Mexico all invest a greater share of GDP in clean energy
A Pew survey found that Brazil invests 0.37% of its economy in clean energy. Canada invests 0.25% and Mexico invests 0.14%. America is eleventh in the world at 0.13%.
Hugo Chavez is still in power
The CIA has a notorious history of interventions in Latin America, supposedly targeting Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, Fidel Castro, Manuel Noriega, Rios Montt, Che Guevara, and many others. But they haven't stopped Hugo Chavez from railing against the United States for years. Clearly America has adopted a more passive regional strategy.

L.A.P.
28th September 2010, 20:43
Hugo Chavez!:thumbup1:

Axle
28th September 2010, 20:49
None of this is any surprise. Most of this list is a direct result of America stripping away its own manufacturing sector. Losing global dominance is the price this country is going to pay for fucking its own workers for a quicker buck.

Fulanito de Tal
28th September 2010, 20:50
The CIA has a notorious history of interventions in Latin America, supposedly targeting Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, Fidel Castro, Manuel Noriega, Rios Montt, Che Guevara, and many others. But they haven't stopped Hugo Chavez from railing against the United States for years. Clearly America has adopted a more passive regional strategy.

How could they forget Salvador Allende?!

I'm really skeptical about everything. Che Guevara said that you can't trust anything that the US says.

Tatarin
28th September 2010, 21:24
I think they forgot something;

After ten years, Osama Bin Laden is still "out there", the Taliban very much intact, and the puppet regime in Iraq is still in total chaos.

Barry Lyndon
28th September 2010, 21:39
Hugo Chavez is still in power
The CIA has a notorious history of interventions in Latin America, supposedly targeting Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, Fidel Castro, Manuel Noriega, Rios Montt, Che Guevara, and many others. But they haven't stopped Hugo Chavez from railing against the United States for years. Clearly America has adopted a more passive regional strategy.

First off, it is odd that they have Rios Montt on the list, since he was the right-wing military dictator of Guatemala in the 1980's who was supported by Washington, not overthrown by him. The lack of mention of Salvador Allende is conspicuous.
Second, the US national security state has hardly been 'passive' towards Chavez. They backed a 2002 coup against him, supported a oil strike to paralyze Venezuela's economy in 2003, have sponsored assassination plots, are attempting to encircle Venezuela with military bases in Colombia and have poured millions of dollars into the right-wing political opposition. What makes Chavez different is that he has thus far survived the onslaught, the first major left-wing Latin American leader to do so since Fidel Castro.

Rakhmetov
28th September 2010, 22:38
First off, it is odd that they have Rios Montt on the list, since he was the right-wing military dictator of El Salvador in the 1980's who was supported by Washington, not overthrown by him. The lack of mention of Salvador Allende is conspicuous.
Second, the US national security state has hardly been 'passive' towards Chavez. They backed a 2002 coup against him, supported a oil strike to paralyze Venezuela's economy in 2003, have sponsored assassination plots, are attempting to encircle Venezuela with military bases in Colombia and have poured millions of dollars into the right-wing political opposition. What makes Chavez different is that he has thus far survived the onslaught, the first major left-wing Latin American leader to do so since Fidel Castro.


Rios Mott was of Guatemala and yea was supported by Reagan. They also forgot Jeddi Jagan and Bosch of the Dominican Republic. How about Aristide? And others known and unknown.

Leonid Brozhnev
29th September 2010, 01:12
If the US's power diminished rapidly, say, within a decade, that could spell disaster for many innocent people. I can't see the foaming mouth US Nationalists go down without a fight, blaming any downfall on all manner of things with their fucked up thinking ('Socialist' policies, Immigrants, Muslims, etc). One Nationalist Party getting in power to 'restore' America or whatever like the Teabagger loonies would spell a lot of pain for the world.

Os Cangaceiros
29th September 2010, 01:35
and the puppet regime in Iraq is still in total chaos.

The situation in Iraq for the U.S. is a lot better than it was in, say, 2006. Still unstable, but I think "total chaos" is overstating the case.

FreeFocus
29th September 2010, 02:17
If the US's power diminished rapidly, say, within a decade, that could spell disaster for many innocent people. I can't see the foaming mouth US Nationalists go down without a fight, blaming any downfall on all manner of things with their fucked up thinking ('Socialist' policies, Immigrants, Muslims, etc). One Nationalist Party getting in power to 'restore' America or whatever like the Teabagger loonies would spell a lot of pain for the world.

Things in the world typically get worse before they get better, unfortunately. I think an imperialist splurge right before a precipitous decline is preferable to decades of imperialist undertakings and success.

The Fighting_Crusnik
29th September 2010, 02:32
Tis a good thing to see that the power hold of the super power will be no more. As long as the world fights to prevent anyone from forming another strangle hold on power, the world will be a little less fucked up for once. :)

IndependentCitizen
29th September 2010, 14:44
If the US's power diminished rapidly, say, within a decade, that could spell disaster for many innocent people. I can't see the foaming mouth US Nationalists go down without a fight, blaming any downfall on all manner of things with their fucked up thinking ('Socialist' policies, Immigrants, Muslims, etc). One Nationalist Party getting in power to 'restore' America or whatever like the Teabagger loonies would spell a lot of pain for the world.
This is my primary concern, especially when the US has huge nationalist support, all they need to do is be ultra-conservative and they'll easily win...

Rakhmetov
29th September 2010, 18:30
You guys worry too much!!

Imperialism Is A Piper Tiger Dung.

:rolleyes:

Fulanito de Tal
1st October 2010, 04:04
Failed Ecuadorian coup :)

stella2010
1st October 2010, 05:11
Hugo Chavez speaks from the heart.

He is a good strong leader for the left.

:thumbup1:

Thumbs up for Hugo

Psy
1st October 2010, 05:15
The situation in Iraq for the U.S. is a lot better than it was in, say, 2006. Still unstable, but I think "total chaos" is overstating the case.
From a military point of view it is a totally SNFU. The US wants to pull out the bulk of their forces but their puppet forces in Iraq are as weak as their puppet force were in South Vietnam.

Meanwhile besides insurgents blowing up their vehicles its vehicles get stuck in Iraqi mud as much as Nazi Germany vehicles got stuck in Russian mud during WWII. And the Abrams tank proved to be too heavy for most bridges and too got easily stuck in soft ground.

Barry Lyndon
1st October 2010, 05:24
From a military point of view it is a totally SNFU. The US wants to pull out the bulk of their forces but their puppet forces in Iraq are as weak as their puppet force were in South Vietnam.

Meanwhile besides insurgents blowing up their vehicles its vehicles get stuck in Iraqi mud as much as Nazi Germany vehicles got stuck in Russian mud during WWII. And the Abrams tank proved to be too heavy for most bridges and too got easily stuck in soft ground.

The Iraqi insurgents were not the Vietcong/NVA, much less the Red Army.
Just no, Psy, just.....no.

Psy
1st October 2010, 13:33
The Iraqi insurgents were not the Vietcong/NVA, much less the Red Army.
Just no, Psy, just.....no.
True but that doesn't make the puppet forces in Iraq any more able to stay in power if the US forces pull out.

pranabjyoti
2nd October 2010, 07:28
The real power of US is in its technological achievement and foreign investment. Regarding oil, US actually don't rely on its own reserve, but rather on the reserves of middle east and in my opinion, that reserve will last longer than the reserves of Venezuela and Canada. Russia itself is now badly seeking foreign investment in the oil fields and I think US would soon take the advantage.
Actually, the so called economic progress of some countries like India are dependent on foreign investment and technology. Most probably a large section of companies engaged in mining and extraction of copper in Chile are US based and that may be true for other countries too.
For a long time and upto even today, the greatest source of income of US and other imperialists the return and profit from its foreign investments and therefore it can afford large trade deficit. If you ask me, I don't see any reason to rejoice in the above-mentioned reasons. US will only be in real trouble when its source of income from foreign investment will dry up and at least I can not see any sign of that in near future.
Why US is so furiously fighting against Iran? Because the oil sector in Iran is nationalized. Why it uprooted and killed Saddam Hossain? Because oil industries in Iraq too was nationalized during Saddam. Why it is fighting so fiercely against Taliban? Because it's the biggest barrier to extract the mineral riches in Afghanistan.

Os Cangaceiros
2nd October 2010, 09:39
From a military point of view it is a totally SNFU. The US wants to pull out the bulk of their forces but their puppet forces in Iraq are as weak as their puppet force were in South Vietnam.

The U.S. has withdrawn the bulk of it's forces from Iraq. In January almost 150,000 soldiers were stationed in Iraq; today that number stands at about 30,000.

A full withdrawal is not only not possible, it's not desirable (http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm). Soldiers are going to be in Iraq for a while.

ContrarianLemming
2nd October 2010, 09:41
Our most powerful regional ally--Brazil--refuses to follow our orders on Irangod fucking forbid another nations refuses to follow the fucking superpowers orders.

the list is bullshit, none of this is going to stop America military dominance, or the hegemony over the world, none of this suggests America is going to stop being the only nation which doesn't have to follow international law or pay attention to other nations.

America is still most certainly on top, America could be dirt poor, lose all it's manufactoring and top corporate figureheads and still be on top: why? Because Brazil can't invade another contry without cause, Australia and Canada can't intervene in other nations, topple democracies or bomb civilians without outcry.

The predictions made could all come true and it wouldn't change the US dominance, as long as America does as it wishs, it will be on top, even if it Canada becomes an oil power and China dominates there economy, America is always going to be the one that can invade either country at the drop of a hat and theres nothing any other nation could do.

Delenda Carthago
2nd October 2010, 10:45
lets cross fingers that US will remain a bigger power than the socialfascists of China and Russia...

Psy
2nd October 2010, 16:13
The U.S. has withdrawn the bulk of it's forces from Iraq. In January almost 150,000 soldiers were stationed in Iraq; today that number stands at about 30,000.

A full withdrawal is not only not possible, it's not desirable (http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm). Soldiers are going to be in Iraq for a while.
The US rather have their soldiers totally withdrawn from combat in Iraq and simply in bases as a stick to keep Iraq as a US client state. They want Iraq to do 100% of the fighting in Iraq as the US wants to occupy Iraq not fight insurgents in Iraq.

Os Cangaceiros
3rd October 2010, 06:47
The US rather have their soldiers totally withdrawn from combat in Iraq and simply in bases as a stick to keep Iraq as a US client state. They want Iraq to do 100% of the fighting in Iraq as the US wants to occupy Iraq not fight insurgents in Iraq.

There really isn't an insurgency to speak of. 54 American servicemen have been killed so far this year compared to almost triple that last year, and nearly 1,000 in 2007.

http://icasualties.org/iraq/index.aspx

pranabjyoti
3rd October 2010, 06:55
Sorry to say, but with this kind of threads, we are just fooling ourselves and the imperialists are laughing at US. Copper production, whether it has been done in Chile or US, doesn't matter UNTIL AND UNLESS AN US BASED COMPANY IS IN CHARGE. Then in paper, it will seem that Chile has crossed US in copper production but we just overlooked the fact that ultimately US takes the fruits and Chile in fact, is emptying its reserve of copper. That is an example and that can be true about other factors too.

GreenCommunism
3rd October 2010, 08:44
it's also great that anyone will really believe it's right the usa to bully brazil into submission.

Barry Lyndon
3rd October 2010, 09:20
There really isn't an insurgency to speak of. 54 American servicemen have been killed so far this year compared to almost triple that last year, and nearly 1,000 in 2007.

http://icasualties.org/iraq/index.aspx

A major factor in all this is that the US forces, to my knowledge, don't operate in urban areas anymore, where they could take serious casualties. It's basically puppet Iraqi forces doing the fighting now.

Another factor is that the insurgents have largely exhausted themselves killing each other in sectarian fighting. They never developed into a guerrilla forces organized on a national basis like the Vietcong did.

Os Cangaceiros
3rd October 2010, 10:36
A major factor in all this is that the US forces, to my knowledge, don't operate in urban areas anymore, where they could take serious casualties. It's basically puppet Iraqi forces doing the fighting now.

Another factor is that the insurgents have largely exhausted themselves killing each other in sectarian fighting. They never developed into a guerrilla forces organized on a national basis like the Vietcong did.

Well, my understanding of the situation is that what was conventionally refered to as "the insurgency" (i.e. Sunni insurgents, and Shia militias like Al Sadr's men) were effectively bought (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2413200.ece) off (http://www.antiwar.com/sperry/), and have been able to maintain their own spheres of influence with a minimum of sectarian bloodshed in the last couple of years. Most of the violence being perpetrated today is supposedly the work of radical Islamist groups.

TwoSevensClash
3rd October 2010, 17:06
People seem to forget one thing about the US. It can't fight guerrilla warfare that well but it can fight conventional warfare really fucking good. It totally destroyed Iraqs army in the invasion then got its ass kicked in the insurgency.

Psy
3rd October 2010, 20:33
People seem to forget one thing about the US. It can't fight guerrilla warfare that well but it can fight conventional warfare really fucking good. It totally destroyed Iraqs army in the invasion then got its ass kicked in the insurgency.
Well the US can fight a weak conventional force well, there is skepticism even in the US military that US can ever hope to defeat a sizable and decently equipped military force like Russia or China. The concern is US military focuses on expensive weapon systems that has proven unreliable and a massive burden on logistics that actually limits mobility on the battlefield due to the massive requirements for logistics and high down times for US equipment. For example most Abrams in Iraq spent more time being repaired, resupplied (or waiting to be) then actually in the field.