I’m focusing on the distinction between what the U.S. government did when we had the Soviets to keep us in check, and vice-versa (“bipolar world”) and what we’ve been doing since the USSR collapsed (“unipolar world”). And yes, I do see an “escalation.” And yes, the most significant thing about Gulf War I was the timing. Hussein would not have invaded Kuwait if the U.S. ambassador had not at least implied we would be cool with that (an inference that must have seemed all the more reasonable to him since we had been backing him against Iran for years). The results giving Bush I the chance to assert American global leadership just at the most propitious moment, just when it seemed possible that in the post-CW world there would be no hegemonic power at all.
It ain’t pretty there, either. 1899-1970.
Ah…I see. Now I can detect the disconnect. I didn’t realize you were using an arbitrary time frame. Certainly if you do so your arguement looks a lot better…and of course you can detect the ‘escalation’ if you pick and choose the frame of reference. This is commonly refered to as ‘cherry picking the data’. Perhaps you and GW have more in common than you think. 
-XT
I think he did say the cold war–that would be, classically, 1945-1990 or so.
I think the necessity to compete internationally at least made us more skillful hypocrites.
:rolleyes: It’s also called “relevance.” America’s Cold War role in the world is something most living adults remember, you see, and our present role in the world is something everybody has to deal with now.
But, we’re getting sidetracked. Perhaps we should get back to discussing the relative merits of a unipolar world vs. a world with no clear hegemon.
Certainly I don’t want to hijack things BG…my apologies. I’ve already chimed in on the OP earlier FWIW. I think the current Unipolar world is about as good as its likely to get…of course I’m an American so I definitely have a skewed viewpoint (which could work both ways depending on the specific American 
). I’m sure that if you asked the average British citizen during the height of their empire they would say something similar.
As I said though…it depends which is better. I’m sure sometimes in either the past or potential future either could be the most optimal.
-XT
I have to partially agree somewhat with Furt in this one. From the global values I treasure, I must say Multi-polar. From the local values I treasure, I must say Mono-polar.
I lean more toward Multi/bi-polar, because I believe that best for technology, business, innovation. It parallels the fundamentals of Capitalistic systems. With sturdy competition, there is pressure for businesses to streamline their services & keep prices in check in order to keep consumers from going elsewhere. Back to governments - space exploration competes, spy techs improve, translation protocols improve, pressure to take great care in foreign policy, etc. However, there is always the danger that military machines improve faster than the knowledge/understanding of commanders of those machines/bombs and actual defense and long term effects from “our boys” using those machines – Thermo-nuclear prowess, for example – possible negative.
However, on the Mono-polar side, I might say that without any real competition, one might expect relative security, superiority, and (if one is on the right side of the fence) social and economic nets, in case things aren’t going well for you. BUT on the down-side, you have the usual symptoms of the capitalist ‘monopoly’ - prices drift too high, consumer complaints won’t be taken seriously because there’s no where else to go, and corruption to preserve the system becomes a daily occurrence.
From all historical accounts, all good things come to an end. In Multi-polar systems, I would imagine that it is easier for technology to permanently stay seated than if there was a mono-polar system – eg, when Egypt and Rome fell [the lesson I believe Plato is trying to remind students, in his ‘Atlantis’ stuff], technology and the security of society rolled back for a couple hundred years, especially on communication, hydro-mechanical devices, architecture, use of cement, art, etc.
space programs dwindle, care may not be
Oops, sorry. That last line was vestigial to a thought I never put up.