The United States Should Set a More Constructive Example for Future Superpowers

It's good to see that we agree that the U.S. is the first modern superpower. Thank you for acceding to my point. Actually, you seem to be very confused as to whether there have been superpowers or not. I quote: "The same goes for superpowers. You say that there have never been superpowers. That is true." A later quote: "We are talking about superpowers. Each superpower has been different." If we are agreed that there have been no superpowers of our kind before, these quotes make no sense. Further, you are correct: >I< was indeed NOT talking about how governments are set up; YOU brought that up in your original answer. There are many other precedents (regarding HOW NATIONS ACT) set by England, Rome, Greece, etc. that we have followed (and others that we have disregarded, granted). I agree that historical major powers have been very different. Their differences, however, DO NOT RULE OUT their following the precedents set by past powers. You continue to use inaccurate terms, such as "copy" and "mandate." Precedent is not about "copying;" it is about taking an action that other powers may then do something SIMILAR to. For instance, in our pre-emptive "disarming" of Iraq, we ended up taking over the whole country. Another power may strike pre-emptively without taking political control of a nation - but the doctrine of pre-emption has a precedent. Do you see the difference? Also precedent is not a "mandate," and I never claimed it to be. My point is that our actions set a precedent that MAY be used in the future. I did NOT claim that any other nation MUST follow our example (which would be a mandate). You are correct in this much: there is no guarantee that future powers will use the precedents we set. We should certainly hope they do not. That just speaks to MY point that other nations MAY use the precedent we set; and right now, that precedent is dangerous. I have not seen any successful contestation of my point that we are setting a dangerous precedent by our actions. Your defense of the con position rests on the arguments that 1.) there is "no proof" that any power has ever followed the precedent set by another power in the past; and 2.) that since there is "no proof," obviously no future power will follow our precedent. These are completely ludicrous claims. Indeed we must study the past to understand the possibilities the future holds and you, sir, have obviously not studied the past. 1.) There is plenty of evidence of international precedent-setting in history. As I pointed out, one example-rich period is the time of the early-modern European nation states. One small example: The transatlantic slave trade grew from the demand for plantation slaves in "New World" colonies in the Americas. The model for plantation-slavery that most of the various nations' colonies followed was based on the Portuguese system implemented on the island of Madeira. Other nations saw the PRECEDENT that the Portuguese had set in buying slaves from African slave traders to supply labor to their plantations. The other nations FOLLOWED PORTUGAL'S PRECEDENT, and began to buy slaves for their new colonies' plantations. There is a lot more evidence out there. It doesn't take a lot of effort to find it. 2.) There is evidence of precedent-setting and -following from history, so your second point is moot; but I'll talk about it anyway. You contend that no future powers will want to follow our precedent. You claim this is so because they will "want their own chance to perfect [a failing model]." You are either naive or foolish to believe this. People and nations will almost always seize any precedent to justify their actions. Continuing my original illustrative fiction, China might decide that the U.S. is a "dangerous rogue nation" and pre-emptively disarm us based on our own precedent. WHY would they do this? For their nation's gain (remember, in the fiction the conflict began as a trade dispute). Just because we will no longer be the world's greatest superpower does not mean that future superpowers will not follow our precedent. They will believe, like we did, that our fate will not be their fate - so THEY can get away with it. Your counter-argument essentially boils down to "we don't have to worry about the precedent we set. It won't matter" (your own words). I believe that I have shown how dangerously foolish this view is. We cannot continue to act with impunity, hoping against hope that no future power will do to us what we have done to others. We have acted with a dangerous combination of disregard for global opinion and tyrannical bullying. Our nation's actions DO set historical precedent. It is always possible that that precedent will not be followed, but do you want to stake our lives on it? How about our kids' and grand kids' lives? I do not. Therefore I reiterate my statement: we must change our nation's course on foreign policy, or risk grave consequences in the future.