[Kenadian_2006]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAN

I'm surprised to not already see a topic. I think it's good to see these regional blocs increasing in number.

Link should work now.

This post has been edited by Kenadian_2006: 24 May 2008 - 10:11 AM

[Rebel Virginia]

Yes, another regional block. That is how it is going to start. The New World Order is very real. Very, very real.

[El Pilchinator]

I like how much press this got.


By which I mean I am just finding out about it right now.

[Roflcopter]

The link is broken.

[Edward Curella]

With Bolivia and Venezuela in there, it is bound to fail.

[Kenadian_2006]

Link should work now.

[Delta1212]

The MDP Web is getting too tangled.

Edit: lol CSN in bold

This post has been edited by Delta1212: 24 May 2008 - 11:24 AM

[Smallfrog]

I'm amazed the international community thinks the EU is so desirable it should e copied.

[Vladimir]

It's not so surprising. By banding together they increase their strength on the international stage; something which is increasingly important. It also improves regional security (which is why the EU started as well) and provides open markets (which generally benefits the larger nations in the group and helps to remove dependence on the US and other international players).

Various parts of the world have been trying to regionalise for decades, but have been prevented by sabotage (mainly from the US) and cultural problems. Increased globalisation, increased independence, and the aid of groups like the EU (which favours global regionalism on its own model) have made it a lot easier. Regionalism has been tried on different models, emphasising sovereignty and non-interference, but these models have tended to either stagnate or take on a more centralised character.

It should be remembered that it is primarily civil society groups that oppose the EU, not the state. These are groups that are generally weaker in the global south.

[Kenadian_2006]

Vladimir, on May 24 2008, 02:10 PM, said:

It's not so surprising. By banding together they increase their strength on the international stage; something which is increasingly important. It also improves regional security (which is why the EU started as well) and provides open markets (which generally benefits the larger nations in the group and helps to remove dependence on the US and other international players).

Various parts of the world have been trying to regionalise for decades, but have been prevented by sabotage (mainly from the US) and cultural problems. Increased globalisation, increased independence, and the aid of groups like the EU (which favours global regionalism on its own model) have made it a lot easier. Regionalism has been tried on different models, emphasising sovereignty and non-interference, but these models have tended to either stagnate or take on a more centralised character.

It should be remembered that it is primarily civil society groups that oppose the EU, not the state. These are groups that are generally weaker in the global south.

I see, so perhaps we won't be seeing a North American Union anytime soon.

[Dennis Von Bremen]

Edward Curella, on May 24 2008, 11:34 AM, said:

With Bolivia and Venezuela in there, it is bound to fail.

With Bolivia and Venezuela in there, it is bound to succeed.



Especially with all of Venezuela's oil.

[Vladimir]

Kenadian_2006, on May 24 2008, 07:26 PM, said:

I see, so perhaps we won't be seeing a North American Union anytime soon.

I know very little about the NAU. But I would suggest that it will become more likely as America's relative power declines.

[V The King]

El Pilchinator, on May 24 2008, 09:23 AM, said:

I like how much press this got.


By which I mean I am just finding out about it right now.

Same here. It wasn't even on the headlines of the largest Brazilian news site, which shocked me. I had to dig up the site for more details.

Either way, I don't see this going very far, although it'll might help SA countries to gain a bit more of political recognition.

[Kenadian_2006]

Vladimir, on May 24 2008, 03:01 PM, said:

I know very little about the NAU. But I would suggest that it will become more likely as America's relative power declines.

Frankly I wouldn't want to see an NAU without a significantly weakened America. Even if it was just Mexico, Canada and America, America would dominate the organization.

[Delta1212]

Kenadian_2006, on May 24 2008, 03:13 PM, said:

Frankly I wouldn't want to see an NAU without a significantly weakened America. Even if it was just Mexico, Canada and America, America would dominate the organization.

Use of the term America confused me. I'm American and even I stopped thinking of it as anything except the US some time ago.

On topic, we're already declining in power relative to everyone else. The EU has turned Europe from a smattering of economically inferior nations (compared with the US) into an economic powerhouse. With the major loss of our global popularity over the last decade even among allies, we've taken a significant political hit internationally, and the devaluing of ou currency has already allowed Canada's dollar to pass ours in worth. While there is a great deal of resistance within the US toward a NAU, mostly coming from the type of people who want to wall off our southern borders and thinking Canadians are are crazy pothead commies, I see that breaking down with time, especially as we fall further from grace.

It's always possible that the next President could turn things around, but even so America's days as the global super power it once was are over. China is on the rise economically. Depending on how the Olympics run, this will probably either speed up or slow down, and I think that will probably be at least as much of an influence on whether anyone decides to boycott as Tibet is, but I don't see that growth grinding to a halt anytime soon even if they really mess the whole event up. Europe has already shown that regional blocs have the ability to fa outstrip the economic resources of their constituent states giving members a marked advantage on the global scale, and if South America is indicative of a general trend to start doing so elsewhere, the US could very well see its dollar value tank in relation to t he rest of the world as former economic midgets start bolstering each other's economies.

Realistically, the US is no longer on the rise and if the global trend remains the same, we probably won't have a choice but to start working on an NAU.

[Kenadian_2006]

Delta1212, on May 24 2008, 03:41 PM, said:

Use of the term America confused me. I'm American and even I stopped thinking of it as anything except the US some time ago.

On topic, we're already declining in power relative to everyone else. The EU has turned Europe from a smattering of economically inferior nations (compared with the US) into an economic powerhouse. With the major loss of our global popularity over the last decade even among allies, we've taken a significant political hit internationally, and the devaluing of ou currency has already allowed Canada's dollar to pass ours in worth. While there is a great deal of resistance within the US toward a NAU, mostly coming from the type of people who want to wall off our southern borders and thinking Canadians are are crazy pothead commies, I see that breaking down with time, especially as we fall further from grace.

It's always possible that the next President could turn things around, but even so America's days as the global super power it once was are over. China is on the rise economically. Depending on how the Olympics run, this will probably either speed up or slow down, and I think that will probably be at least as much of an influence on whether anyone decides to boycott as Tibet is, but I don't see that growth grinding to a halt anytime soon even if they really mess the whole event up. Europe has already shown that regional blocs have the ability to fa outstrip the economic resources of their constituent states giving members a marked advantage on the global scale, and if South America is indicative of a general trend to start doing so elsewhere, the US could very well see its dollar value tank in relation to t he rest of the world as former economic midgets start bolstering each other's economies.

Realistically, the US is no longer on the rise and if the global trend remains the same, we probably won't have a choice but to start working on an NAU.

Still, the climate just will never be the same in an NAU as it would ever be in the USAN or EU. There are multiple huge ecomonies in the EU and the smaller nations in the EU aren't as pathetically weak as the small nations in the NAU would be (assuming the Central American countries even DID join). Major powers in a possible NAU? America. That's it. Even if its relative and actual power does decline, Mexico and Canada (together or alone) would never be able to counterbalance America's inherent dominance in a union.

[thedestro]

U.S 's Dollar is dropping. I remember a few years ago when I was spending my vacation in Brazil and 1 U.S dollar yielded about R$2.30 (reals-Brazilian currency). Now it's way below that.

I remember reading an article in Maxim a while ago about the nations in line to be the next biggest Superpower, and China was high on the list. They have a huge labor force, they are becoming more and more modern, and they are one of the U.S's loaners and are benefiting from the deficit.

Brazil was #4 or #7 on the list, we're energy independent (woo!), only because we rely on various alternative fuels to sustain our demand, and we drill off-shore. And we have a large supply of natural resources that we can rely on. Various other reasons I can't recall.

If the U.S. doesn't turn around from that path it's going down within the next few years, I'd bet China is in line to take U.S's place.

[Kenadian_2006]

Here's a news article if anyone is interested.

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/7417896.stm

[Emperor Whimsical]

thedestro, on May 24 2008, 01:00 PM, said:

U.S 's Dollar is dropping. I remember a few years ago when I was spending my vacation in Brazil and 1 U.S dollar yielded about R$2.30 (reals-Brazilian currency). Now it's way below that.

I remember reading an article in Maxim a while ago about the nations in line to be the next biggest Superpower, and China was high on the list. They have a huge labor force, they are becoming more and more modern, and they are one of the U.S's loaners and are benefiting from the deficit.

Brazil was #4 or #7 on the list, we're energy independent (woo!), only because we rely on various alternative fuels to sustain our demand, and we drill off-shore. And we have a large supply of natural resources that we can rely on. Various other reasons I can't recall.

If the U.S. doesn't turn around from that path it's going down within the next few years, I'd bet China is in line to take U.S's place.

I did a report recently on Brazil's ethanol alternative fuel. Pretty smart, I must say.

[El Pilchinator]

thedestro, on May 24 2008, 04:00 PM, said:

I remember reading an article in Maxim

I'm sorry I just couldn't take your post seriously after this line.