Most scholars believe that we are in a multipolar world.
You seem to be stuck in the neocon alternate reality.

Who are "most scholars"? And what kind of scholars? (Did you take a poll? How many?) This is not a multipolar world. In fact, the so-called realists have actually had a hard time explaining what to them should be a total impossibility, since the "realist" school of thought is based on "equilibrium" and "balance of power" resulting from all nations equally pursuing their own selfish national interests. So the realists started reconciling their being (at least partially) wrong by calling this "the unipolar moment". Of course, they were never kind enough to elaborate on exactly how long this "moment' was supposed to last, precisely, or can last. And of course, it won't last forever. The rise of China---whatever anybody may say about a growing middle class in China and resistance to the Communist regime, a third revolution is by no means imminent in the PRC---will affect our dominance of the world (or attempted dominance: the realists always assume the state actors will act rationally in pursuit of those interests). Then there's the rise of Iran, which seems to want its own hegemony, and not just regionally. Russia could always---never say never---recover from its post Cold War slump and rise again to superpower status. So you would be correct if you had said "we will not remain unipolar forever". But to say the world is currently multipolar is ridiculous, and from what I have heard/read/etc, it is not at all what "most scholars" are saying. I think t his is principally why the old "realist" school of thought has fallen out of favor.

Also I find it odd for a Canadian to think that the world is multipolar, especially when you live right next door to the Unipower (or as the French coined the phrase in the 1990's, the "Hyperpower"). The United States is not the only "great power" on the globe, by any means. There are others as I stated above. But none with quite our reach, now that the bipolar world of the Cold War no longer exists. That is what I mean by the world being "unipolar", Ricky. Anyone who thinks it's otherwise, well, excuse me, but I have to get back to this place called Earth before the Stargate closes.

By the way would you kindly define "Neocon"? People throw that word around rather carelessly, I have noticed, and Redscape is far from an exception!

hacker

Who are "most scholars"? And what kind of scholars? (Did you take a poll? How many?)

Its interesting how you respond. You make an assertion without any evidence to back it up. I give you a link ... You call me on that and just remake your assertion....
So okay..
Here's a few 'scholars" who have commented on the end of the unipolar world. (Generally considered to have been the state of affairs between the end of Communism in Russia and the disaster of the iraq war).
Thomas Friedman
Glenn Hasdedt
Pratigoya Darpan.

The reason we know the unipolar world doesn't really exist is that the US cannot influence events in all parts of the world to the extent it did when there was a bipolar world. The loss of Ossetia to Russia by Georgia marked an event that demonstrated that the US could not significantly impact what Russia wanted to do with border nations... In a unipolar world, this couldn't have happened. Rome controlled the events in most of Europe.
The financial collapse also signified the USA's vulnerabilities...as has the inability to control events in the Middle east or Ukraine.
The US is probably the worlds only remaining great power, but it cannot be demonstrated that it is able to control events everywhere. Witness the need for building coalitions and alliances...
But I'll bite. Find something that actually supports your position. Maybe start with the definition of a unipolar world...

Irving Kristol is generally considered to be the father of neo conservatism. I suppose his 1995 book

the autobiography of an idea

would give you the best idea of what it is supposed to mean. Mostly i think its just simple mined rationalizations that tend to ignore evidence and rely on ideas they think are self evident. Stuff like trickle down economics, and the notion that socialism has failed. Without looking critically at the successes of American policies in the late 40s 50s and 60s...


hacker
I mean this merely in just, but you seem to be getting shot down quite a bit, lately[/quote]
In just what?
You refering to Fate? You realize he thinks the Pope really isn't a Christian right?
Although i appreciate the theological argument he makes, and have sympathy for his position that Christians who don't behave like Christians, aren't... (Though he'll also narrow the definition to only those who accept Christ in a specific fashion).
In this debate and in the real world, the catholic Church and all of its adherents who justified their atrocities over hundreds of years are considered Christians. So are the witch burning protestants and the fundamental Christians who argued Scriptural for racism, slavery and the inferior position of women..

Just on the issue of unipolar vs. multipolar, I think Ricky is right. Although there is only one super power, the reality is that there are many different pockets of power of varying degrees of strength (China, Russia, Europe, Iran, etc.). The US cannot enforce it's will everywhere, clearly; equally clear is that in terms of leverage, the US is the strongest power right now.

Good for you Ricky! And yes, I have heard of at least Thomas Friedman, so spare me the typical patronization of how I can't read, am not as educated as you are, or whatever you usually say when my point differs from yours (or anybody's for that matter). We read some of him in one of the international relations courses I took. Now, I agree that the United States cannot control everything. That is impossible for anybody to do. But as far as a "dominant power" there is currently no equal to the United States, just plenty who'd like to be. And you just said that these scholars agree that the unipolar world existed for a while. Which is something I said ("Unipolar Moment", did I not?) but I still believe the world is largely unipolar. Even Britain and France could not control everything at their peak (pre-WWI, one might say) yet one could still argue that they were the world's superpowers. So forgive me if I spoke a little too literally, all right?

Now please tell me again: what do you mean by neocon? Don't just copy what a dictionary or a book you've shown me but didn't yourself read says---I have a dictionary of my own---I want you to think for yourself, and how you typically use the word, or what you typically use it to describe. I'm giving you permission to think for yourself just this once, you do not have to rely on Irving Kristol.

And as far as loss of territory to Russia by the Republic of Georgia, that's probably because we simply looked the other way. Like we normally do until it's too late, and just like we are doing in the Ukraine now: a lot of friendly talk to the Ukrainian government, and you may have heard Susan Rice's recent comments to a CBS reporter (she said her reply to a recent statement by V. Putin would have been "how dumb do I look?" Go you, Susan!) Yet, no substance comes out of it. Now, do not take this next statement too literally but I feel that its "gist" is correct, and it does reflect the general pattern of behavior of the United States Government: We can "lose" as much of the Middle East to ISIS/AQAP and as much of the Ukraine to Russia as we feel like doing....and it seems the Obama Administration is making angry noises but in reality looking the other way. Very ethical of us, wouldn't you agree? But also very typical of us. BTW, your mention of our financial collapse is totally irrelevant to your general point, but I'll counter it anyway by saying it was caused by a massive failure of federal regulators to enforce existing regulations.

As I just said, I understand what you are saying, Ricky, and I will admit that you have a point Ricky---to a point. But that's not what I meant by "unipolar". Even in the "bipolar" world of 1945 to 1990, neither the USSR nor the US could (or wanted to) control everything. That does not mitigate the fact that the geopolitical situation could have used some political Prozac to even things out a bit. No, the US cannot control everything in the world. But it is still the dominant military, economic and political power in the world. I strongly suspect that you knew exactly what I meant, too but couldn't resist arguing with it anyway...

...but that's just a hunch (I cannot find any scholars who agree with me on that point....but some people here on Redscape might). You certainly have your own "interesting" way of responding to people I might add...not just to me, either.

P.S.: what do Fate and the Pope have to do with it?

Hacker:

Now please tell me again: what do you mean by neocon?

Neocon is what progressives call conservatives with whom they don't agree.

Liberal is what conservatives call progressives with whom they don't agree.

Originally, Neocon referred to liberal / socialists who became conservative after they became disillusioned with the USSR and liberalism in general. I'm a bit of a neocon. Hacker, I would think, is just a con, as he seems to be too young to be a neocon.

I also find Ricky's argumentative style to be very annoying, even when I agree with him. I recently read an article in VOX that largely agreed with his views on Iran and nukes. I rather enjoyed the article and thought it was very well written. I learned something from it and bore no grudge against the writer. But somehow when Ricky puts forth these views in his muddled, pedantic, and inaccurate way, it's just annoying.

hacker

. But that's not what I meant by "unipolar

".

You always seem to have a different definition for common terms. Perhaps you could check on the definition of terms before you use them.

hacker

And as far as loss of territory to Russia by the Republic of Georgia, that's probably because we simply looked the other way

The leading power in a unipolar world would never look the other way. They wouldn't have to....
When faced with aggression, Rome acted.

ray

I also find Ricky's argumentative style to be very annoying, even when I agree with him

In the end you learn something. Asi do from you occassionally.

And, as I admit I've done from you occasionally Ricky. But I concur with RJ about your, er, style of persuasion.

And since you seem to want to argue over the word "unipolar", here's the Oxford definition:

unipolar Syllabification: u·ni·po·lar
Pronunciation: /ˌyo͞onəˈpōlər/
Definition of unipolar in English:
adjective
1Having or relating to a single pole or kind of polarity: a unipolar magnetic charge
More example sentences
1.1(Of psychiatric illness) characterized by either depressive or (more rarely) manic episodes but not both. Compare with bipolar disorder.
Example sentences
1.2(Of a nerve cell) having only one axon or process.
Example sentences
1.3 Electronics (Of a transistor or other device) using charge carriers of a single polarity.

With a rather interesting example sentence reading:

The United States is aiming at world leadership and is using the objective globalization processes with which it correlates the trend towards a unipolar world and a corresponding military strategy.

The realist school of thought assumes that all nations will act in their own selfish interests and that a kind of equilibrium will result in which such a thing cannot take place. To a point I agree with that, but I do not accept that the world is not at this point incredibly lopsided toward the power---military, economic and so forth---of the United States. We have our finger in every pie, so to speak. We don't control everything, as I already admitted. But the world's geopolitical power is I must admit lopsided in favor of ourselves [the United States]. Through this pursuit of national interest, things are still a bit stacked in our favor, rather unfairly one must admit.

And I thank you for your kind words, Ricky, but I do know how to read a dictionary. They taught us that, too, in school here.

The leading power in a unipolar world would never look the other way. They wouldn't have to....
When faced with aggression, Rome acted.

Obviously someone at State didn't get the memo!

My only reason for asking for your definition of neoconservative was due to the fact that that's one of those political words that gets thrown around quite often without people using it realizing its real or intended meaning. Fair enough?

neoconservative Syllabification: ne·o·con·serv·a·tive
Pronunciation: /ˌnēōkənˈsərvədiv/
Definition of neoconservative in English:
adjective
Relating to or denoting a return to a modified form of a traditional viewpoint, in particular a political ideology characterized by an emphasis on free-market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy.

"We" have now wasted time arguing over what unipolar means. Shall we move on? Do we have your permission to do so?