Quick response: Good points about China.

My thoughts on the matter are as follows. Whilst America has certainly set itself on a difficult path, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that it will fall from grace. I say this because I think all of the other would-be contenders have their own serious problems.

1. Europe looks tired. It looks like it alternates between resting on its laurels and worrying about not becoming Americanised, all the while becoming less and less relevant in a global context, and also having a major identity crisis. For example, they can't agree on a constitution. Then there's population, namely plummeting birth rates, ageing, and in some countries, being outbred by Muslims/non-Europeans to the point of becoming minorities in their own countries by mid-century.

2. Pick any of America's internal problems and disparities, and multiply them by one hundred for Russia. Throw in serious population decline.

3. Any large developing nations (China, India, Brazil) face enormous looming environmental crises, as well as massive internal disparities.

4. The Islamic world is a complete backwater in every way.

Who does this really leave as a suitable and definite candidate for the No. 1 position?

Dr Cumes' thesis could be based on human greed, somewhat entailing the old 19th century discussion conerning Darwin's Survival of the Fittest intermingled with the Old Testament gift of the Promised Land - including the Holistic right to destroy the unbelievers.

Part of the above did create mixed feelings among Christians, depending whether one believed in the justice and compassion of the Nazarene Jesus, or the far more pragmatic teachings of the much later Christian teachers.

It is thus no surprise that Darwin's Survival of the Fittest concept really enthused the 19th century political and business elite, giving justification for the scandals of the free-market of the time, as well as the Western elimination of coloured peoples, including our Australian blacks.

It also gave justification for Darwinian socialism, promoted by Darwin's former friend Herbert Spencer against Darwin's wishes, and later praised by Hitler's Nazis, many of our own right-wingers leaning unconsciously towards it today.

Indeed, the thrust of business and politics was so strong towards the end of the 19th century that littel notice was taken of an ageing Darwin who still persisted that his Survival of the Fittest concept had nothing to do with human progress, but only to the physical ability of animals to adapt to nature's tribulations.

The British political philosopher Maynard Keynes also gave warning about human progress after he attended the Treaty of Versailles, predicting the rise of Hitler and the begiinings of WW2, as his economic ideas had also lifted the West out of the Great Depression.

His mixed economy also served us so well before we brought in a remodelled 1920s free market in the 1970s, letting the profits again be lapped up by the corporates, the growing empires fed by shares from a money hungry public.

We shut down with word from the former editor of the New York Times, Howell Raines - who says that after six failed years of war, it is about time we gave historical knowledge another chance rather than peristent missile diplomacy.

Shorbe, yes, we do so much need America, but as Dr Cumes intimated, why is Americana letting Texaco George Dubya and his oily deputy offsider, combined with all those untrusty neo-cons, many of them former Israelies, make such a Godammed mess of international relations.

My God, and made a hundred times worse now with the top neo-con, Paul Wolfowitz, former architect of the illegal attack on Iraq, then made head of the World Bank, found cuddling up with an Islamic sweetie. And would you believe, Georgie Boy is out to forgive him.

Reckon its about time most of you right-wingers who by your intellect give reminder of Hitler's stormtroopers, should get real and take good notice of Dr Cumes reasoning.

And please to remember along with Dr Cumes, we repeat that we don't hate America, but only the intellectual
imitates trying to run the global show.

As unipolar reps they're nothing short of a disgrace.

one other thing about China. They also have tens of thousands of men who will never get married because women are scarce since the one child policy and the drowning of girl babies. This strikes me as an excellent recruiting ground for armies, all these men without a sense of purpose or the stablising influence of wives and children.

"[In The U.S.] About 37 million people live in poverty. About 40 million have no health insurance."

What a joke...
http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2006/05/poverty-in-america.html

So what does the current poverty level really mean in America? Well according to the Heritage report it means that

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

"While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat."

Yeah...poverty. Right. This post is an insult to the real poor in third world countries.

Take your socialistic nonsense to a Clinton function.

Sharkfin...it isn't tens of thousands of men in china who won't be able to find a wife due to a shortage of women...it is more like 100 million men.