The U.S is losing its cachet as a global superpower.

Ouch. Bronchitis is nasty. Hope you get better, man. The Iraq Conflict has over the past few months seen some of it's lowest levels of violence, as American and allied Iraqi forces seem to be cracking down on al-Qaeda fairly hard. Provinces that were once deemed lost to insurgents are now some of the most peaceful in the nation. Even civil war ridden Baghdad has become considerably more pacified in the past few months. The Iraqi government, though inept, is still on it's feet and capable of governing a nation (partly). The progress of the Iraqi army and security forces are coming along well. Given their suffering under three decades of a dictatorship, it's quite remarkable that Iraq is setting up a democracy faster than Germany or Japan did after WWII. As for WMDs, we did find chemical weapons hidden in warehouses. And though obsolete, they still had weapon potential, and could have killed thousands. And it is widely thought that Saddam transferred the majority of his weapons to Syria before the invasion. http://www.2la.org... Perhaps Iraq was more stable before we came along. But I wouldn't call suffering under a brutal regime where at any moment you could be gassed or put on firing squad, or sent to a rape room if you were a woman. That's iron fisted stability, stability that is solely enforced by the army and police, not stability induced by the relative peace and prosperity of a certain people. It was time for America to exercise it's moral obligation to defend human rights and remove Saddam Hussein anyway. You believe that we ought to have left them alone to suffer even further? Furthermore, according to Wikipedia, "The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. Later it came to include additional elements, including a policy of preemption, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way." Saddam Hussein had been funding suicide bombers in Palestine since the Intifada began. "Those of two suicide bombers were the first to be paid the new rate of $25,000 U.S. and those whose relatives had died in other clashes with the Israeli military were given $10,000 U.S. each. The $500,000 U.S. doled out in this impoverished community yesterday means that the besieged Iraqi leader now has contributed more than $10 million to grieving Palestinian families since the new intifada began 18 months ago." This was published in March 2002 by FOX News. Iraq had terrorist connections and was perceived as a threat to America and her interests. Therefore, we responded by removing the dictator from power in 2003. As for the Gulf War, America rolled it with nearly 700,000 soldiers. If you use the highest estimate for each nation after that, they add up to 262,900 soldiers. With statistics like these and the troops under the command of Norman Schwarzkopf, America could have easily done everything on it's very own without any help. Had we invaded Iraq with the same numbers, the situation would have been very different than now. It's more than likely that the insurgents would have all been slaughtered by now. Unilateralism would have met no speed bumps here, but a coalition is always preferred. And Rice is right. We have no permanent allies, and we should never have them. But we do have permanent enemies, even if she thinks not. Our enemy is whoever stands between a people and their freedom, and whoever wishes for our death, for our destruction. Ah, the EU and China. The EU may see itself as a mediator of sorts, but no superpower can keep that status without a mighty military. As things stand, Europeans are too wimpy to have such a distinction. Their combined economy may be stronger, but it's future prospects are chilling at best. The National Intelligence Estimate predicts that the EU will fall apart by 2020. I'd reckon sooner, however. Europe's economy is highly centralized and constantly racked and regulated by a bloated bureaucracy. Economic growth is becoming stagnant in most areas. In countries where taxes can be as high as 50%, where highly unproductive and restive Islamic populations reside, and where the majority of it's income is spent on useless entitlement programs, it's very unlikely that Europe will retain any sort of superpower statue within the nest 20 years or so. The countries that have invested money there will find little of it left in future years. Europe is ahead of America only in the sense that it's canoe is already halfway over the waterfall. And now China. I must say, it is astounding of how quickly China's economy is expanding. Double digit growth is nothing to sneeze at. However, China's situation is like Europe's, but with a twist. Europe has the threat of Islamic invasion, China does not. But what they both share is the massive amount of entitlements promised by their communist/statist governments. As their populations get older, both the Chinese and European governments will have to dish more and yet more money that was promised to the elderly. With both regions having negative population growth and an enormous surplus of old folks, they won't be having much money left to spend on anything else. Is China going to be the superpower of the 21st century? No. It's population is going to get old before it gets rich. And China will have increasingly hostile populations as capitalism resists Chinese regulation and China's "Army of the Unemployed" begins to act out after being denied the fruits of the economic boom. With more people unemployed than America employs total, and where, just like Europe, unemployment hovers permanently around 10%, the problems will only be exacerbated in future years. What's different about all this? America does not have these problems. America has stayed (relatively) capitalist-oriented, still has a healthy birth rate, and the ingenuity and materials to fix any problem that arises. America has more of a stake in the future than the present, perhaps more than any nation has ever been granted. And the world is going to give it to us on a silver platter.