This question wouldn`t have been difficult to answer a decade ago, but it`s now. The world order that has continued till today was framed after the Second World War. It was a world dominated by the Soviet Union and America. The ideological rivalry between them defined the Cold War era. That era ended in 1989 when the Soviets disintegrated. From the early 90s till the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, America was the only Super Power and the world was comfortable with it.
Everybody knew that the Saudis plotted, financed and executed the terrorist acts on 9/11, but American government managed to deceive the people into believing that Iraq had something to do with it coupled with the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. What that illegal war did was to start a chain reaction that ended America`s status as the only Super Power as well as plunges her into avoidable debts. Having lost her credibility, the world was ready to embrace other nation-states and centres of power liker China, Russia, the BRICS etc.
It`s generally accepted today that, sooner or later, China would become the biggest economy in the world- a position America has enjoyed for ages. I`m not writing off America as a global power, would remain the most important military power for a long time to come and still very much socio-culturally more popular than any other country, but her role as the only Super Power has come to an end.
What is emerging now is a multi-polar world in which countries and regions play important role in the world.

One phenomenon that we cannot overlook is the emergence of non-state actors in the global balance of power. The first letter bomb to be used as a terrorist act to achieve a political end was by an Israeli, in a quest for an independent state. But what Osama Bin Laden did was to turn a terrorist organisation into an opposition outfit capable of challenging any entity. Isis doesn`t have to worry about public opinion because of re-election; it`s a law onto itself without any democratic accountability. Can anything be more powerful than this?

Or is it still the case that international organisations like IMF, World Bank and UNO remain powerful because of their global reach? And can we afford to ignore big business in the grand scheme of things? So, in the world that we live in today, which entity is the most powerful? It would even be nice if we can discuss them according to the order of their impotance.

america has never been the 'only" superpower

lekkie073:
america has never been the 'only" superpower

I wonder tooo o oooh
America can only form to small countries
Why dem no try thier mate like Russia, Iran and China on forget almighty N| Korea
Why America dey Fear Iran and N/Korea
I don't Russia and China own

ATERI:


Everybody knew that the Saudis plotted, financed and executed the terrorist acts on 9/11, but American government managed to deceive the people into believing that Iraq had something to do with it.

Point of Correction: Amerika plotted, financed & executed the terrorist acts on 9/11 for 2 reasons:

1.) As a phoney pretext to invade Afghanistan & Iraq.

2.) To establish the Department of Homeland Security - where hundreds of billions of dollars are being siphoned annually while covertly spying on its citizens.

Ask yourself, what was the almighty NORAD doing in the morning of 9/11 before the attacks? Yes - you guessed right!

lekkie073:
america has never been the 'only" superpower

Can we start from your own definition of a Super-power?

seunny4lif:

I wonder tooo o oooh
America can only form to small countries
Why dem no try thier mate like Russia, Iran and China on forget almighty N| Korea
Why America dey Fear Iran and N/Korea
I don't Russia and China own

It`s normal, whoever has nuclear arsenal is always going to be respected, but the fact that you want to be a nuclear power, or possess nuclear weapons like North Korea does not necessarily make you a Super-power

Zoharariel:


Point of Correction: Amerika plotted, financed & executed the terrorist acts on 9/11 for 2 reasons:

1.) As a phoney pretext to invade Afghanistan & Iraq.

2.) To establish the Department of Homeland Security - where hundreds of billions of dollars are being siphoned annually while covertly spying on its citizens.

Ask yourself, what was the almighty NORAD doing in the morning of 9/11 before the attacks? Yes - you guessed right!

I may not be able to agree 100%, but America might have done it in pursuit of one agenda or the other. But I believe it has back-fired because it has allowed other countries to catch up with America

I know north Korea is not super power
But why America no try them

ATERI:


It`s normal, whoever has nuclear arsenal is always going to be respected, but the fact that you want to be a nuclear power, or possess nuclear weapons like North Korea does not necessarily make you a Super-power

ATERI:


I may not be able to agree 100%, but America might have done it in pursuit of one agenda or the other. But I believe it has back-fired because it has allowed other countries to catch up with America

if u think Saudi arabia has the capability,to plan and execute an attack of that magnitute on AMERICAN soil,then u need to have your global political perception re-examined..CIA,FSB,ISI,MOSSAD,BND etc are all in the business of global 'false flag' operations...9/11 was a means to an end for the wall streets crooks,the neo cons,the pro-isreali lobby groups etc.

fineguy11:
if u think Saudi arabia has the capability,to plan and execute an attack of that magnitute on AMERICAN soil,then u need to have your global political perception re-examined..CIA,FSB,ISI,MOSSAD,BND etc are all in the business of global 'false flag' operations...9/11 was a means to an end for the wall streets crooks,the neo cons,the pro-isreali lobby groups etc.

No I would never accept that the state and government of Saudi Arabia was part of that attack, strongly believe that Bin Laden initiated it and his foot soldiers completed it. What I know is that, 15 people cannot enter America, learn, practise and perfect how to use planes as a weapon of mass destruction without authorities knowing about it. So I believe the authorities knew about it somewhere along the line, but decided to ignore it thinking that it might be a God-sent opportunity to broaden their grip on the world. It`s not in the interest of Saudi Arabia for any harm to come to America because America is the ultimate guarantor of Saudis` power. Can`t argue against MOSSAD because such attacks would force America to attack a couple of their enemies in the Middle-East. The case against all of the above is that 9/11 was only possible in the eyes of the people planning it. Since when have we been hearing that type of threat, but nobody believed that they could pull it off. So it is only in retrospect that one could see it clearly

ATERI:

This question wouldn`t have been difficult to answer a decade ago, but it`s now. The world order that has continued till today was framed after the Second World War. It was a world dominated by the Soviet Union and America. The ideological rivalry between them defined the Cold War era. That era ended in 1989 when the Soviets disintegrated. From the early 90s till the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, America was the only Super Power and the world was comfortable with it.
Everybody knew that the Saudis plotted, financed and executed the terrorist acts on 9/11, but American government managed to deceive the people into believing that Iraq had something to do with it coupled with the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. What that illegal war did was to start a chain reaction that ended America`s status as the only Super Power as well as plunges her into avoidable debts. Having lost her credibility, the world was ready to embrace other nation-states and centres of power liker China, Russia, the BRICS etc.
It`s generally accepted today that, sooner or later, China would become the biggest economy in the world- a position America has enjoyed for ages. I`m not writing off America as a global power, would remain the most important military power for a long time to come and still very much socio-culturally more popular than any other country, but her role as the only Super Power has come to an end.
What is emerging now is a multi-polar world in which countries and regions play important role in the world.

One phenomenon that we cannot overlook is the emergence of non-state actors in the global balance of power. The first letter bomb to be used as a terrorist act to achieve a political end was by an Israeli, in a quest for an independent state. But what Osama Bin Laden did was to turn a terrorist organisation into an opposition outfit capable of challenging any entity. Isis doesn`t have to worry about public opinion because of re-election; it`s a law onto itself without any democratic accountability. Can anything be more powerful than this?

Or is it still the case that international organisations like IMF, World Bank and UNO remain powerful because of their global reach? And can we afford to ignore big business in the grand scheme of things? So, in the world that we live in today, which entity is the most powerful? It would even be nice if we can discuss them according to the order of their impotance.

US. Not as a country though, but it's few elites who own it's federal and other banks, petrol chemical agricultural and mining industries everywhere in the world.

These are the same people who have shares in IMF, World Bank, European Bank, Even the African Development Bank. They control their government which in turn controls UN and it's institutions, and the rest of the world. So in fact, the entire world is ruled by a handful who own/lay claim to 99% of its resources and people.

Muafrika2:

US. Not as a country though, but it's few elites who own it's federal and other banks, petrol chemical agricultural and mining industries everywhere in the world.

These are the same people who have shares in IMF, World Bank, European Bank, Even the African Development Bank. They control their government which in turn controls UN and it's institutions, and the rest of the world. So in fact, the entire world is ruled by a handful who own/lay claim to 99% of its resources and people.

Tricky because those corporate elites are in other Western countries as well, doing the same thing. Don`t you think?

ATERI:


Tricky because those corporate elites are in other Western countries as well, doing the same thing. Don`t you think?

True, every country has a few untouchable rich who own most of the countries wealth. But even their wealth is just a drop in the ocean. These powerful people am referring to do not advertise their wealth. They are not on Forbes. Here am referring to extreme wealth which is ages old. The wealth of the Aristocrats whose families have ruled past empires and whose territories are now masquerading as democracies. The British royal family, also refered to as Queen of England, for example. Most European Royals are in the same club.

These are the families that not only dominate by putting forth and controlling presidents in Europe and US but also engage in trade. You do remember, for example, that Africa was first distributed amongst European royal companies like the British East Africa Company, The British East India Company, etc. The entire continent was divided solely for the purpose of exploitation of resources. Those companies still exist burried behind new faces, names. That is why resources in former British companies are going to be exploited by a British company, same for French, Belgium and even American colonies. They have owners already.

These people's powers and riches are beyond individual countries. They are the fellows who are keen on the globalisation agenda. Because their interests are worldwide. They jointly own shares in multinational companies - which is why they are almost unseen. Global organs like the league of Nations and the UN have never been about world peace, etc. It's always been for power, control of resources and people.

Muafrika2:


True, every country has a few untouchable rich who own most of the countries wealth. But even their wealth is just a drop in the ocean. These powerful people am referring to do not advertise their wealth. They are not on Forbes. Here am referring to extreme wealth which is ages old. The wealth of the Aristocrats whose families have ruled past empires and whose territories are now masquerading as democracies. The British royal family, also refered to as Queen of England, for example. Most European Royals are in the same club.

These are the families that not only dominate by putting forth and controlling presidents in Europe and US but also engage in trade. You do remember, for example, that Africa was first distributed amongst European royal companies like the British East Africa Company, The British East India Company, etc. The entire continent was divided solely for the purpose of exploitation of resources. Those companies still exist burried behind new faces, names. That is why resources in former British companies are going to be exploited by a British company, same for French, Belgium and even American colonies. They have owners already.

These people's powers and riches are beyond individual countries. They are the fellows who are keen on the globalisation agenda. Because their interests are worldwide. They jointly own shares in multinational companies - which is why they are almost unseen. Global organs like the league of Nations and the UN have never been about world peace, etc. It's always been for power, control of resources and people.

You make a lot of sense.

Zoharariel:


Point of Correction: Amerika plotted, financed & executed the terrorist acts on 9/11 for 2 reasons:

1.) As a phoney pretext to invade Afghanistan & Iraq.

2.) To establish the Department of Homeland Security - where hundreds of billions of dollars are being siphoned annually while covertly spying on its citizens.

Ask yourself, what was the almighty NORAD doing in the morning of 9/11 before the attacks? Yes - you guessed right!

Hey Clown of Kremlin,I believe it's time to have your daily software reprogramming

Do you really believe the trash you typed

Muafrika2:


True, every country has a few untouchable rich who own most of the countries wealth. But even their wealth is just a drop in the ocean. These powerful people am referring to do not advertise their wealth. They are not on Forbes. Here am referring to extreme wealth which is ages old. The wealth of the Aristocrats whose families have ruled past empires and whose territories are now masquerading as democracies. The British royal family, also refered to as Queen of England, for example. Most European Royals are in the same club.

These are the families that not only dominate by putting forth and controlling presidents in Europe and US but also engage in trade. You do remember, for example, that Africa was first distributed amongst European royal companies like the British East Africa Company, The British East India Company, etc. The entire continent was divided solely for the purpose of exploitation of resources. Those companies still exist burried behind new faces, names. That is why resources in former British companies are going to be exploited by a British company, same for French, Belgium and even American colonies. They have owners already.

These people's powers and riches are beyond individual countries. They are the fellows who are keen on the globalisation agenda. Because their interests are worldwide. They jointly own shares in multinational companies - which is why they are almost unseen. Global organs like the league of Nations and the UN have never been about world peace, etc. It's always been for power, control of resources and people.

You are confusing wealth with power. Powerful families are not that rich. They dont need 100s of billions to have influence anyway.

Quick question : Do you think globalization is a bad idea?

Missy89:


You are confusing wealth with power. Powerful families are not that rich. They dont need 100s of billions to have influence anyway.

Quick question : Do you think globalization is a bad idea?

Globalisation is not an idea. It's a reality we are living with.

Missy89:


You are confusing wealth with power. Powerful families are not that rich. They dont need 100s of billions to have influence anyway.

Quick question : Do you think globalization is a bad idea?

Monkey, I know I will see you here again talking tripe. I know the powerful families of Rockefeller, Rothschild, Bush, the royal family in England, etc. are all paupers.

Brain dead semen! Goat.ie

Muafrika2:

Globalisation is not an idea. It's a reality we are living with.

What do you think is wrong with it? Since it seems you are against it

Missy89:


What do you think is wrong with it? Since it seems you are against it

Because the Northern Hemisphere is a the top of the global pyramid and forcing the rest of the world to bear their expenses. In all forms of that word.

What do you find appealing about globalization?

Muafrika2:

Because the Northern Hemisphere is a the top of the global pyramid and forcing the rest of the world to bear their expenses. In all forms of that word.

What do you find appealing about globalization?

It is inevitable

Missy89:


It is inevitable

Inevitable to the extent that we have weak leaders. Whatever is not in the interest of an independent country can`t be inevitable. When you look at it closely, globalisation is advanced Structural Adjustment Program. They used to tell us that Structural Adjustment Program was inevitable only to apologise for its imposition later. Africa is today a dumping ground for all sorts of Western goods and services, but what are we producing and exporting to the West? Nothing! So it is for them to throw all this rubbish at us, but it is for us to see through it

Just like all his peers, when the king of Belgium went to Congo, he told the world he was there to civilize primitive Africans. He would go on to commit the only Holocaust the West does not want to remember. From the slave trade, to colonisation, to IMFand World Bank, to SAP and now globalisation, the only things that are changing are the names, the goals remain the same

ATERI:


Inevitable to the extent that we have weak leaders. Whatever is not in the interest of an independent country can`t be inevitable. When you look at it closely, globalisation is advanced Structural Adjustment Program. They used to tell us that Structural Adjustment Program was inevitable only to apologise for its imposition later. Africa is today a dumping ground for all sorts of Western goods and services, but what are we producing and exporting to the West? Nothing! So it is for them to throw all this rubbish at us, but it is for us to see through it

Just like all his peers, when the king of Belgium went to Congo, he told the world he was there to civilize primitive Africans. He would go on to commit the only Holocaust the West does not want to remember. From the slave trade, to colonisation, to IMFand World Bank, to SAP and now globalisation, the only things that are changing are the names, the goals remain the same

Globalization is not really in itself a bad thing.
A lot of Third World countries have been lifted into 2nd world status by virtue of globalization, it enabled them trade and sell their products into the international market without any hassle of trade barriers and restriction.
It allowed for free flow of goods and services among nations, this gave serious and determined developing countries a chance to lift themselves out of poverty.
Countries like China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Vietnam cannot have the level of prosperity they currently enjoy without globalization.
Majority of goods produced in these countries are sold in Europe and America.
Outsourcing services to countries like India and Philippines is also a product of globalization.
I agree it has its own downside.........

Lazy and unserious developing nations will be at the receiving end as their nations will become dumping ground for cheap goods.

Loss of manufacturing jobs in developed nations due to higher wages may also be an issue, and that's why people like Donald Trump has been calling for review of free trade deals and America should insist on fair trade.

Everything is not all about conspiracy theory, it's nobody's fault if Nigeria is yet to benefit from globalization.
When a nation has leaders that think only about their bellies and are not smart, what do u expect.

I agree with you, but you know you didn`t mention a single African country in your analysis.They used to tell us that Ghana has done well from globalization until Ghana went back to IMF for $1billion loan recently. Well, everybody knows that no African country would benefit from joining World Trade Organisation, because we don`t produce anything tangible. The reason all this would come down to leadership is that, it`s for an intelligent leader to know when to join what. China did her home-work well and spotted a loophole to be exploited and it has worked perfectly since joining WTO. The same WTO has led to the death of our industrial base in Nigeria. I remember Peter Mandelson huffing and puffing in London once EU realised that China has outwitted them.
I don`t know about you, but I`m gradually coming to the conclusion that, Africa would never be anything until we come up with a political and leadership model that doesn`t give total power of representation to our elected leaders. I mean, when was the last time African leaders took a decision that didn`t eventually put us at a disadvantage? Even in the field of sports that I used to think might be the only dividend of globalisation, it has killed our local league completely. We shouldn`t accept a system just because it is working elsewhere or because it easy to do so. Globalisation has not worked for Africa.

Let russian go front, china that keeps silent like idiot follows make i dey follow them for back who else.

ogechieku:
Let russian go front, china that keeps silent like idiot follows make i dey follow them for back who else.

Rebel leader! Even if the economy puts China in a better position than Russia, I still think China doesn`t have the type of pugnacious mentality needed to take over from America. Their leaders need to be more confrontational than they are doing at present. China needs a Putin ASAP!

ATERI:


Rebel leader! Even if the economy puts China in a better position than Russia, I still think China doesn`t have the type of pugnacious mentality needed to take over from America. Their leaders need to be more confrontational than they are doing at present. China needs a Putin ASAP!

(1)It is of no use for china to also confront her at the sametime with russian, just like every other country doesnt want to do, it will look like conspiracy agaist her and international law (2)China is respecting agreement signed with her even in the face of temptation(3) China knows its weak point and it wont confront anyone without taking care of it (4) China may turn out to fail as the self-acclaimed giant of the world failed due to her aggressive occupancy of the world space (5) China is busy occupying and accumulating all values that the self-acclamed giant of the world losing and she busy supplying weaponery to rebels & terrorists (6) China has taken care of enemy weak points but

ATERI:


Rebel leader! Even if the economy puts China in a better position than Russia, I still think China doesn`t have the type of pugnacious mentality needed to take over from America. Their leaders need to be more confrontational than they are doing at present. China needs a Putin ASAP!

Very well. Putin is bald headed man whose first thought meets at least 30% of what your next plan could be. HOWEVER, AS MUCH AS PUTIN NEEDS CHINA

In all honesty, USA is still the most powerful both militarily and economically, though it's military parity with Russia's is almost the same. And I see Russia overtaking the USA in the next decade.

Economically I think the US scam is still fetching them enough real monies in exchange for worthless dollars. But China has the largest economy in the world right now though this does not necessarily transform into power. Russia on the other hand do have a great potential to become the economic powerhouse of the world. However, the Russians have chosen not to make an aggressive push of their economy but rather will take a slow and steady route to maximize their potentials just as they are doing with their military.

SIRTee15:


Globalization is not really in itself a bad thing.
A lot of Third World countries have been lifted into 2nd world status by virtue of globalization, it enabled them trade and sell their products into the international market without any hassle of trade barriers and restriction.
It allowed for free flow of goods and services among nations, this gave serious and determined developing countries a chance to lift themselves out of poverty.
Countries like China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Vietnam cannot have the level of prosperity they currently enjoy without globalization.
Majority of goods produced in these countries are sold in Europe and America.
Outsourcing services to countries like India and Philippines is also a product of globalization.
I agree it has its own downside.........

Lazy and unserious developing nations will be at the receiving end as their nations will become dumping ground for cheap goods.

Loss of manufacturing jobs in developed nations due to higher wages may also be an issue, and that's why people like Donald Trump has been calling for review of free trade deals and America should insist on fair trade.

Everything is not all about conspiracy theory, it's nobody's fault if Nigeria is yet to benefit from globalization.
When a nation has leaders that think only about their bellies and are not smart, what do u expect.

Apart from South Africa and Egypt, can you name any other African country that is of the 2nd world status? And Globalization is not the reason why Egypt is a 2nd world country. Egypt was a former world power and it's strategic location are some of the main reasons why Egypt is what it is today and it could have been a lot better.

In all honesty, I believe America is the most powerful country in the world. America is a blessed land, the land of the brave and home of the free. America is blessed in all measures, in terms of economic power and political influence America comes first, second and third. However, In terms of Military power I will want to give it to the Russians.

But I think the major area of discourse in this trying times is; can America wield such powers in an emerging multi-polar world? for me, I think with the likes Of Vladimir Putin that will be more of a herculean task for America to wield such influence than at anytime during their nationhood

ogechieku:
(1)It is of no use for china to also confront her at the sametime with russian, just like every other country doesnt want to do, it will look like conspiracy agaist her and international law (2)China is respecting agreement signed with her even in the face of temptation(3) China knows its weak point and it wont confront anyone without taking care of it (4) China may turn out to fail as the self-acclaimed giant of the world failed due to her aggressive occupancy of the world space (5) China is busy occupying and accumulating all values that the self-acclamed giant of the world losing and she busy supplying weaponery to rebels & terrorists (6) China has taken care of enemy weak points but

But how do you think America sees China right now, notwithstanding China`s passive nature?