PDA

View Full Version : US superpower status challenged - Gates


MacBytes
Nov 16, 2006, 02:47 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: US superpower status challenged - Gates (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20061116154719)
Description:: Gates gave Apple Computer's iPod two thumbs up. Fresh from launching Microsoft's iPod rival Zune this week, Gates said the iPod was "phenomenal, unbelievable, fantastic"

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

miloblithe
Nov 16, 2006, 02:59 PM
Gates sees the world as macro issues, and he's not blind. The US superpower status is ending and it's pretty obvious.

macFanDave
Nov 16, 2006, 05:47 PM
Gates sees the world as macro issues, and he's not blind. The US superpower status is ending and it's pretty obvious.

First, if we return to pre-9/11 attitudes about immigration, we'd be able to get the influx of talent that complements our own homegrown variety. That is the way America has always worked.

Don't get so excited about China -- it is merely moving from being a laughingstock underachiever to being an authoritarian labor colony for the West. When 1 out of 4 people on the planet are involved, the movement seems huge. If they ever adopt real democracy, they could eventually become a true, sustainable superpower. The Soviet Union was a superpower, but its idiotic economic system made it unsustainable.

We can be the world's only superpower and still act in a multilateral fashion. When Bill Clinton was president, we used our military to stop genocides in Bosnia and Kosovo, but we didn't pursue bin Laden fiercely enough after the embassy and Cole bombings because we didn't have enough international support. We were the moral superpower because we could project power, but we weren't an idiot, arrogant cowboy.

We can also be the only superpower without forming an empire. History shows that empires are always doomed eventually. After 9/11, we saw an opportunistic cabal panic us into forsaking the Constitution and our tradition of civil liberties and separation of powers. (I'm talking about the neo-conservatives, not al-Qaeda.) Last Tuesday, the people spoke and I believe we will see yet another Renaissance of our American values.

combatcolin
Nov 16, 2006, 06:17 PM
Empires come and go.

The people will always be there.

Took Britain a long time to fianally admit they where not the world powere that we were post WWII, i wonder how America will fare?

Russia steps down, China steps up, India is thinking about it too, and Russia may step back up again.

The wheel goes round, and nobody has used the Bomb again - thats the main thing.

Lixivial
Nov 16, 2006, 06:53 PM
My response is to part of the article, but not to the headline -- as, well, the headline seems more apt for the Politics forum...

Gates was cool on social networking wannabes trying to emulate YouTube and MySpace, which Gates characterized as part of a bubble. "There is this notion that traffic equals profit. Traffic equals maybe you can translate that into something," Gates cautioned.

It's strange that Gates would say that, considering his company's MSN service has since emulated MySpace with MSN Spaces, and YouTube with Soapbox (which, of course, the article mildly sat upon with one sentence).

Other than that, I think the man is spot on with what he's said. I particularly enjoyed what he had to say about the Zune/iPod conflict. The media seems to want to portray the notion that, for one company to win, the other must lose. This doesn't have to be the case, and this isn't how Gates sees it; it may be irrelevant, as it's how Ballmer sees it, but at least Gates sees it the way it oughta be seen.

Ugg
Nov 16, 2006, 08:34 PM
Don't get so excited about China -- it is merely moving from being a laughingstock underachiever to being an authoritarian labor colony for the West. When 1 out of 4 people on the planet are involved, the movement seems huge. If they ever adopt real democracy, they could eventually become a true, sustainable superpower. The Soviet Union was a superpower, but its idiotic economic system made it unsustainable.

We can be the world's only superpower and still act in a multilateral fashion. When Bill Clinton was president, we used our military to stop genocides in Bosnia and Kosovo, but we didn't pursue bin Laden fiercely enough after the embassy and Cole bombings because we didn't have enough international support. We were the moral superpower because we could project power, but we weren't an idiot, arrogant cowboy.

Last Tuesday, the people spoke and I believe we will see yet another Renaissance of our American values.

China faces formidable hurdles but the inevitable outcome will be more freedom for the Chinese, not less. To think of China solely in terms of its manufacturing ability is also naive, they have the nous to see their goals through. Pandora's chinese version of the box has been opened.

In order to prevent cowboyism, we need to always have someone other than a cowboy at the helm. Americans are partial to their less than intelligent cowboys and are likely to elect another in the future.

Values, schmalues, when the rich control the wealth in this country, values are thrown out the window in pursuit of higher profits.

Grakkle
Nov 16, 2006, 09:07 PM
First, if we return to pre-9/11 attitudes about immigration, we'd be able to get the influx of talent that complements our own homegrown variety. That is the way America has always worked.

Don't get so excited about China -- it is merely moving from being a laughingstock underachiever to being an authoritarian labor colony for the West. When 1 out of 4 people on the planet are involved, the movement seems huge. If they ever adopt real democracy, they could eventually become a true, sustainable superpower. The Soviet Union was a superpower, but its idiotic economic system made it unsustainable.

We can be the world's only superpower and still act in a multilateral fashion. When Bill Clinton was president, we used our military to stop genocides in Bosnia and Kosovo, but we didn't pursue bin Laden fiercely enough after the embassy and Cole bombings because we didn't have enough international support. We were the moral superpower because we could project power, but we weren't an idiot, arrogant cowboy.

We can also be the only superpower without forming an empire. History shows that empires are always doomed eventually. After 9/11, we saw an opportunistic cabal panic us into forsaking the Constitution and our tradition of civil liberties and separation of powers. (I'm talking about the neo-conservatives, not al-Qaeda.) Last Tuesday, the people spoke and I believe we will see yet another Renaissance of our American values.

I'm definitely no fan of the Republicans, but if you take an honest look at the Democrat's record it's not much better. For instance, most of the genocide in Kosovo started after the NATO intervention.

Bill Clinton wasn't any more of a humanitarian than George Bush - he just did PR better.

SPUY767
Nov 16, 2006, 10:39 PM
I'm definitely no fan of the Republicans, but if you take an honest look at the Democrat's record it's not much better. For instance, most of the genocide in Kosovo started after the NATO intervention.

Bill Clinton wasn't any more of a humanitarian than George Bush - he just did PR better.


Amen, it appears that there are those who still undertand politics.

macFanDave
Nov 17, 2006, 10:46 AM
I'm definitely no fan of the Republicans, but if you take an honest look at the Democrat's record it's not much better. For instance, most of the genocide in Kosovo started after the NATO intervention.

Bill Clinton wasn't any more of a humanitarian than George Bush - he just did PR better.

That is such crap! Bill Clinton was and is far more of a humanitarian than George W. Bush (George H. W. Bush has surpassed his son since the tsunami). Perhaps not the humanitarian that lives up to your high, perhaps even unattainable, standards, but W. can't even hold a candle to Clinton among mortal men.

So what you are saying is that Bush's reaction to Darfur is approximately equal to Clinton's actions in the former Yugoslavia? And you get congratulated for your "knowledge" about politics?!

TequilaBoobs
Nov 17, 2006, 10:54 AM
the U.S. is stronger today than any other government/empire in history.

iKwick7
Nov 17, 2006, 11:10 AM
the U.S. is stronger today than any other government/empire in history.

Umm... I hope that's sarcasm. I'm not one for politics, but that is just a silly statement.

combatcolin
Nov 17, 2006, 12:33 PM
the U.S. is stronger today than any other government/empire in history.

No, its agree with us or else.

;)

What good is it having an ally who practises what America preach's, cough cough (France) if they won't do what America tells them to do?

;)

Swarmlord
Nov 17, 2006, 12:49 PM
<snip>
So what you are saying is that Bush's reaction to Darfur is approximately equal to Clinton's actions in the former Yugoslavia? And you get congratulated for your "knowledge" about politics?!

I'd be more interested in knowing what the U.N. is doing about Darfar. That's what they are in existence for. Do those that hate President Bush so much want him to act unilaterally to clean up Darfar too?

Call Kofi and tell him he needs to get out of NYC more often. There's stuff going on in the world.

TequilaBoobs
Nov 17, 2006, 04:22 PM
Umm... I hope that's sarcasm. I'm not one for politics, but that is just a silly statement.

Unfortunately it's true. Name me one other government/empire in history that had more military strength than USA now. Not the Spanish Armada, or British Navy or Genghis Khan. Hard to believe it, but USA rox!

Peterkro
Nov 17, 2006, 04:33 PM
Unfortunately it's true. Name me one other government/empire in history that had more military strength than USA now. Not the Spanish Armada, or British Navy or Genghis Khan. Hard to believe it, but USA rox!

Scary.:rolleyes:

Kingsly
Nov 17, 2006, 04:56 PM
I'd be more interested in knowing what the U.N. is doing about Darfar. That's what they are in existence for. Do those that hate President Bush so much want him to act unilaterally to clean up Darfar too?

Call Kofi and tell him he needs to get out of NYC more often. There's stuff going on in the world.
THANK YOU!

I'm definitely no fan of the Republicans, but if you take an honest look at the Democrat's record it's not much better. For instance, most of the genocide in Kosovo started after the NATO intervention.

Bill Clinton wasn't any more of a humanitarian than George Bush - he just did PR better.
THANK YOU!!!

Amen, it appears that there are those who still undertand politics.
Amen indeed. Glad to find someone else who gets it. :)

That is such crap! Bill Clinton was and is far more of a humanitarian than George W. Bush (George H. W. Bush has surpassed his son since the tsunami). Perhaps not the humanitarian that lives up to your high, perhaps even unattainable, standards, but W. can't even hold a candle to Clinton among mortal men.

So what you are saying is that Bush's reaction to Darfur is approximately equal to Clinton's actions in the former Yugoslavia? And you get congratulated for your "knowledge" about politics?!
There is this little known corner of the world... its called Rwanda. "acts" ( :rolleyes: ) of genocide were committed there. Between 800,000 to 1,071,000 people were killed in about 100 days. Clinton did *nothing*

Yugoslavia... I've been to bosnia and kosovo (during the war itself) and the majority of people there are resentful toward the US and Clinton because, to them, it was a big charade for the benefit of the news.

macFanDave
Nov 17, 2006, 06:08 PM
There is this little known corner of the world... its called Rwanda. "acts" ( :rolleyes: ) of genocide were committed there. Between 800,000 to 1,071,000 people were killed in about 100 days. Clinton did *nothing*

Yugoslavia... I've been to bosnia and kosovo (during the war itself) and the majority of people there are resentful toward the US and Clinton because, to them, it was a big charade for the benefit of the news.
If you read the article further, you would have seen that Clinton said he regretted not doing more about that. Of course you omit that and conveniently ignore the context of that moment in history. Remember Blackhawk Down and the fiasco in Somalia the year before? Americans were not happy about our involvement in African affairs at that time.

But, are you saying Bush would have done any better? Are you saying that he will eventually admit that our inaction on Darfur was regrettable?

Back to my earlier point: I never said Bill Clinton was up to your 20/20 hindsight standards of sainthood, but he is head and shoulders better than Bush. Just because two leaders don't live up to your expectations doesn't mean that they are both equally lousy. Bush is much lousier.

Ugg
Nov 17, 2006, 06:25 PM
I'd be more interested in knowing what the U.N. is doing about Darfar. That's what they are in existence for. Do those that hate President Bush so much want him to act unilaterally to clean up Darfar too?

Call Kofi and tell him he needs to get out of NYC more often. There's stuff going on in the world.


The US support for the Islamists is one of the most two-faced attitudes I've ever known. Aren't we supposed to be fighting terrorism instead of supporting it? Too bad that bushco has no idea where Darfur is. Well, actually, it's probably better for them that he doesn't.

Grakkle
Nov 17, 2006, 06:38 PM
I'd be more interested in knowing what the U.N. is doing about Darfar. That's what they are in existence for. Do those that hate President Bush so much want him to act unilaterally to clean up Darfar too?

Call Kofi and tell him he needs to get out of NYC more often. There's stuff going on in the world.

The UN should be doing something about Darfur. I agree that this is one instance where if a nation were to act unilaterally it might be justified. But it's the responsibility of the UN to act, not the US.

I maintain that Clinton was no humanitarian - read Noam Chomsky. And yes, Chomsky is far left as far as American politics go, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. His work is a lot more convincing than the crap the Republicans and Democrats spew.

Dane D.
Nov 17, 2006, 08:14 PM
I thought the charade was Monica and the blue dress :D.

[quote]Ugg
You were what, about 12 years old when the war in Kosovo took place? You certainly weren't out of infant school when the war in Bosnia was being fought. What were you doing there at such a tender age and who told you that it was just a charade? The other kiddies you were playing football with?

Did I miss something in his thread about his age?

macFanDave
Good catch, Mr. Wikipedia! Are you trying to impress us with your knowledge by pretending you didn't just rip that right from Wikipedia. I guess your moral filter doesn't have a plagiarism feature

If you read the article further, you would have seen that Clinton said he regretted not doing more about that. Of course you omit that and conveniently ignore the context of that moment in history. Remember Blackhawk Down and the fiasco in Somalia the year before? Americans were not happy about our involvement in African affairs at that time.

But, are you saying Bush would have done any better? Are you saying that he will eventually admit that our inaction on Darfur was regrettable?

Back to my earlier point: I never said Bill Clinton was up to your 20/20 hindsight standards of sainthood, but he is head and shoulders better than Bush. Just because two leaders don't live up to your expectations doesn't mean that they are both equally lousy. Bush is much lousier.

Clinton didn't have the balls to use the military as it should, if memory serves me right, he sent some B-52s over and dropped bombs. The tandem team of the Clintons tried real hard to unsit Jimmy Carter as the Nations' worst administration.

Kingsly
Nov 17, 2006, 09:50 PM
You were what, about 12 years old when the war in Kosovo took place? You certainly weren't out of infant school when the war in Bosnia was being fought. What were you doing there at such a tender age and who told you that it was just a charade? The other kiddies you were playing football with?
Umm, Have you been to either Bosnia or Kosovo? How about Albania? You're right. In Albania and Kosovo I was 12. I was carrying lenses and film through refugee camps while my photojournalist mom snapped photos. I was in Bosnia last year. Lived with the bodyguard for the US ambassador. I think I know what I'm talking about. ;)
Good catch, Mr. Wikipedia! Are you trying to impress us with your knowledge by pretending you didn't just rip that right from Wikipedia. I guess your moral filter doesn't have a plagiarism feature :rolleyes:

If you read the article further, you would have seen that Clinton said he regretted not doing more about that. Of course you omit that and conveniently ignore the context of that moment in history. Remember Blackhawk Down and the fiasco in Somalia the year before? Americans were not happy about our involvement in African affairs at that time.

But, are you saying Bush would have done any better? Are you saying that he will eventually admit that our inaction on Darfur was regrettable?
I knew those figures long before double checking on google. In fact, if I weren't so lazy, I could've double checked using one of the many books I have on rwanda resting on my shelf containing many books about all different genocide's around the world.

I'm not saying Bush could've done any better. In fact, I'm quite upset with his administration right now. You are also 100% correct on the Mogadishu issue as well. In fact, that tidbit of history could play into Bush's handling of Darfur. We are in two wars right now, who needs a third one?

This thread is getting really heated up! :eek:
I am curious as to why both of you are so quick to flame. Not that I care, no harm done. Its just not necessary. FYI, both of these quoted comments would've held up and been perfectly fine without resorting to personal attacks.

TequilaBoobs
Nov 17, 2006, 11:06 PM
Umm, Have you been to either Bosnia or Kosovo? How about Albania? You're right. In Albania and Kosovo I was 12. I was carrying lenses and film through refugee camps while my photojournalist mom snapped photos. I was in Bosnia last year. Lived with the bodyguard for the US ambassador. I think I know what I'm talking about. ;)
I knew those figures long before double checking on google. In fact, if I weren't so lazy, I could've double checked using one of the many books I have on rwanda resting on my shelf containing many books about all different genocide's around the world.

I'm not saying Bush could've done any better. In fact, I'm quite upset with his administration right now. You are also 100% correct on the Mogadishu issue as well. In fact, that tidbit of history could play into Bush's handling of Darfur. We are in two wars right now, who needs a third one?

This thread is getting really heated up! :eek:
I am curious as to why both of you are so quick to flame. Not that I care, no harm done. Its just not necessary. FYI, both of these quoted comments would've held up and been perfectly fine without resorting to personal attacks.

shuush, its all in good fun. Pop!

Ugg
Nov 18, 2006, 12:40 PM
Umm, Have you been to either Bosnia or Kosovo? How about Albania? You're right. In Albania and Kosovo I was 12. I was carrying lenses and film through refugee camps while my photojournalist mom snapped photos. I was in Bosnia last year. Lived with the bodyguard for the US ambassador. I think I know what I'm talking about. ;)

This thread is getting really heated up! :eek:
I am curious as to why both of you are so quick to flame. Not that I care, no harm done. Its just not necessary. FYI, both of these quoted comments would've held up and been perfectly fine without resorting to personal attacks.

I've been to Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia but not Albania or Kosovo.

What you've done is simplified an extremely complex situation into a pair of soundbytes. Hardly fair to any of the parties involved.

The Bosnians and Croatians were extremely grateful for the intervention of the US and NATO, what they aren't happy with is that it came so late. The Dayton Peace Accord was a necessary evil and one that has caused great problems within Bosnia. However, the solution to this problem must come from within but the long standing blood feuds and the uniquely Balkan endemic corruption will probably prevent this from happening.

Slovenia's per capita GDP is higher than Portugal's and Slovenia will be the first of the ten new EU entrants to use the Euro. Even Croatia has done reasonably well in the aftermath of the Balkan wars. Blaming Clinton or even the EU for the problems that Bosnia, Serbia or Kosovo face is irresponsible when the problems they face are internal.

Albania and Kosovo's extremely high birthrates are to blame for the bulk of their problems. Add to that the culture of corruption that is a legacy of the Ottoman Empire and you have an intractable situation that can only be solved through cultural change not from without.

I'm not "quick to flame" but when someone attempts to reduce a complex problem to a pair of soundbytes, my BS meter sounds an alarm.

Your insight into the unique situation in the Balkans is more than welcome. As per the rules of the board, please provide valid links when discussing controversial issues. If it's an opinion, please state it as such.

Ugg
Nov 18, 2006, 12:45 PM
Clinton didn't have the balls to use the military as it should, if memory serves me right, he sent some B-52s over and dropped bombs. The tandem team of the Clintons tried real hard to unsit Jimmy Carter as the Nations' worst administration.

Clinton was hamstrung by NATO, the Pentagon and public opinion. It always amazes me that bushco got so much support to invade Iraq when his reasons for doing so were bare faced lies, whereas Clinton was lambasted for even thinking about stopping the slaughter in the Balkans.

Kingsly
Nov 18, 2006, 02:03 PM
I've been to Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia but not Albania or Kosovo. What you've done is simplified an extremely complex situation into a pair of soundbytes.
This is MacRumors. I'll save my 10 page political reports for my PoliSci major. ;) :)
Blaming Clinton or even the EU for the problems that Bosnia, Serbia or Kosovo face is irresponsible when the problems they face are internal.
I'm not blaming Clinton or anyone else for what happened in the Balkans. I never tried to, nor will I. I was reacting to MacFanDave's quote:
So what you are saying is that Bush's reaction to Darfur is approximately equal to Clinton's actions in the former Yugoslavia? And you get congratulated for your "knowledge" about politics?!
by pointing out that Clinton isn't the God that some people make him out to be. And, for the record, Bush is far from obtaining that status as well.

I'm not "quick to flame" but when someone attempts to reduce a complex problem to a pair of soundbytes, my BS meter sounds an alarm.
Since you are an authority on the issue, why was the previous post about me being 12 even necessary? Your latest post is chock full of information that is all correct. It would've been a great alternative to the flame. Once again, I must stress: If your BS meter goes off, instead of flaming hit back with factual evidence. In my experience that shuts someone up far quicker than personal attacks.

Your insight into the unique situation in the Balkans is more than welcome. As per the rules of the board, please provide valid links when discussing controversial issues. If it's an opinion, please state it as such.
We must have been speaking to different people, because everyone I spoke to in sarajevo on the issue was pretty upset with the U.S.
Sadly, I cant provide a link because I'm speaking from personal experience.

Hopefully this clears up the remaining issued between myself, Ugg, and MacFanDave. :)

(this is why I try my best to avoid the political forums! :eek: :D )

Ugg
Nov 18, 2006, 02:21 PM
Since you are an authority on the issue, why was the previous post about me being 12 even necessary? Your latest post is chock full of information that is all correct. It would've been a great alternative to the flame. Once again, I must stress: If your BS meter goes off, instead of flaming hit back with factual evidence. In my experience that shuts someone up far quicker than personal attacks.

We must have been speaking to different people, because everyone I spoke to in sarajevo on the issue was pretty upset with the U.S.
Sadly, I cant provide a link because I'm speaking from personal experience.

Hopefully that clears up the remaining issued between myself, Ugg, and MacFanDave. :)

(this is why I try my best to avoid the political forums! :eek: :D )

A person's age is always relevant and especially in this instance. Saying you've been in a war zone at the age of 12 isn't very believable. I don't disbelieve you but you didn't provide that info with your first post. I apologize for my harsh reaction.

I am by no means an authority on the Balkans, however, I'm highly interested and continue to be learn about what is happening and what has happened there. Your experiences there are truly very interesting to me.

The few people I spoke with, all Muslims by the way, were extremely upset that they had to endure so many years without any NATO or US support. The "observers" were a total travesty and the political infighting in NATO infuriated them. Clinton's ending the war through the bombing campaign did not upset them. Had he not done so, Milosevic might well have totally "cleansed" Bosnia of its Muslims, something they all realize.

What was it they were upset about? Would you care to clarify?

autrefois
Nov 20, 2006, 11:57 AM
I think this article, if it had been written, might have been more relevant and truthful.

Microsoft superpower status challenged - Gates

The rise of Apple combined with failing Microsoft innovation means Microsoft must surrender its superpower status and adopt a more open worldview.

"Microsoft has been spoilt by being a leader for so long. It's a more multi-operating-systemic environment [now]," he said.

"Apple is ... drawing on the talent they have in business of all types. There is a sense of urgency and speed."

Gates urged Microsoft to renew its commitment to the things that had made it strong. "If we want to get our share of the world's improvements, we need to look at our edges. One of our edges is smart people around the world want to come work for Microsoft. That's been a huge benefit to us. It's an unfair advantage." he said.

Interviewed by veteran talk show host Charlie Rose, Gates made it clear that Apple's rise does not mean Microsoft loses out, but riches and wealth from innovation get spread around more.