Role of the US in the global community of the 1980's?
917289
Wow, you just asked a mouthful. Here is the short version off the top of my head. \n- latin america (huge) \n- spearheaded the current neo-liberal paradigm \n- nucular prolifiration debate
511833
The 1970s decade refers to the years from 1970 to 1979, inclusive and it was called the "Me Decade".  See reference:\n\nSocietally, the United States, which had become an influential global power, experienced a significant transition. While much social activism was initiated during the sixties, people were allegedly more self-absorbed during the seventies. Analyst and writer Tom Wolfe epitomized this feeling in 1976, calling the seventies the "Me Decade." Music became at once more introspective with the singer-songwriter movement and more carefree with the rise of disco music. In terms of world and domestic affairs for the United States, the 1970s was considered one of the worst decades.
1097460
Hey gokart.  The reason why America is expected to solve Mexico's and everybody else's problems is simply because, for better or worse,  we've been sending economic aid to nations throughout the globe since the end of WWII and the world has become dependent on us to continue to do so because they have neither the ability or desire to solve the problems of their own citizens. Also, since the US has always been so generous by allowing tens/hundreds of thousands of people to immigrate here legally each year, leaders of other nations have relied (and continue to rely on)on the US as a convenient way to rid themselves of many of their most economically and politically desperate citizens who, often, would become the greatest threat to the control and power enjoyed by these leaders. While the US was left largely unscathed at the end of the war, and emerged as the great economic and political superpower and as a beacon of freedom and prosperity, the economies of both our former enemies and allies alike were left crippled.  Rather than allow the economies of other nations to suffer as they had after the first world war, America felt it was politically, morally and economically critical to help both former friend and foe to rebuild (just look at Japan and Germany) in order to break the cycle of global economic depression which helped push the Germans to support Hitler and into war.  In addition, when the Soviet Union rose as a political/economic/military rival following the war, the US(and their democratic allies) also thought it critical to provide economic support to various third world nations that preached democracy (although many of these nations were, in fact, ruled as dictatorships) in order to fight the spread of communism/socialism which was pereived as a grave threat to democratically elected governments.  Since the Soviet Union disintegrated and left the US as the only (current) superpower remaining, many of our former allies who depended on us for military and economic support now regard us as imperialistic bullies now that the Soviet political threat has vanished; with the current political vacuum of no American rival (although China is clearly getting there quickly), it is now almost universally en vogue to claim American imperialism and to be anti-American even among many of our closest former allies who were dependent on us to help them re-build their countries (France? Germany?).  Even now, though we certainly aren't required to and many of our political motivations for doing so are gone,and despite hostility abroad, the US still tries to be a beacon of morality by offering economic aid to nations across the globe and we are rewarded with increasing anti-American sentiment.  Latin American nations and Mexico, in particular, present a unique set of relationships.  As said previously, the US supported many third world Latin American nations(Panama, Nicaragua) militarily, economically and politically without any accountability by the leaders we aided following WWII due to the great fear Americans had that communism would spread to their hemisphere and their backdoor (look at Cuba); many of the nations/leaders we supported in third world countries across the world were nothing more than military strong men/dictators who took our aid and did nothing to benefit their people and these nations are still suffering and blame the US as a result.  Mexico, on the other hand, never was involved in WWII and, like the US, emerged unscathed - however decades of corruption and mismanagement by their political leaders and wealthy elite has also put economic pressure on the average Mexican citizen.  Rather than demand and fight for political and economic reform in their homelands, many Latinos simply found it easier to go to the US-whether its through legal immigration channels or not-for better economic, political and social conditions.  The people trying to come to the US have no will or ability to demand changes at home;
549968
Absolutely yes.  We are really a global community now, and we all have a responsibility to the entire world on matters of that nature.
625867
This smells like a research paper you should be doing your own research for.  I'll just say the foreign policy of the 1950's was totally dominated by worldwide struggle with the USSR for allies and hegemony.  Everything else was secondary.  On top of the perpetual war footing and a major shooting war in Korea there was the threat of nuclear holocaust.  And the American imagination has latched onto the idea that this decade was innocent and carefree, a Golden Age that makes our own times dark and frightening in comparison.  This grotesque glorification of the past plays right into the hands of the current regime, which manipulates fear to stay in power and strip away our constitutional rights.
898852
Without going all the way back to the 1970’s, the main suspects are:\nRichard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith. Throughout the 1980s and, especially, 1990s they advocated the use of America’s military might and premiere position in international politics to spread the American way life around the world.\n\nDuring the 1990s they pressured first President G.H.W. Bush and then President Clinton to take out Hussein and remake Iraq and its’ government in an American democratic image. Both Bush and Clinton were too smart to fall their stupid plan and so, at the time, it went nowhere.\n\nThen along came slow-thinking George and 9/11, and the stage was set for American disaster. Bush, with Cheney and Rumsfeld’s urging, decided to implement the neocons plan, convinced that it would secure his place in history (something that is even more of a driving force for Bush than for most ego-driven politicians).\n\nNot knowing, or caring to even learn, anything about the geopolitics of the Middle East (and Iraq in particular), and refusing to listen to experts (including Colin Powell and his won father), but claiming that God had told him it was a good idea, Bush went ahead with a plan that had no up-side fro America. \n\nInvading Iraq not only distracted America from pursuit of Bin-Laden and the others responsible for 9/11, but it was doomed to failure because of the realities on the ground.\n\nOf course, the neocons are now blaming Bush and the military for messing up their plan. As usual, however, they are wrong. Their plan never had a chance – no Middle East expert in the world gave Bush’s invasion more than a 50 percent chance of realizing any kind of success.
925441
WWII Set the stage for the US and the USSR to be the leading world powers.
214570
YEAR 1980\nTEAM W BREMENN
25971
As with much in life, the first matter to explore is who has the desire for global power? This then comes back to the human wants and desires which are then collectively expressed by what can broadly be described by the term " culture". Most cultures (political and religious) are inherently competitive. \nSo how will the US loose its power? By repeating the example of the Roman empire - by becomming fat, lazy and the decay of moral standards. \nWhat can be said about a society where the most visible icons are vacuouse "celebrities" who parade their promiscous sex and drug lifestyles and the masses actually admire them!! It wasnt always so. America became great while it still had moral and ethical belief as its guiding light. \n\nSo the question then can be asked - which cultures exhibit the desire to challenge the prevailing world order?\n China is definitely one of my picks. In recent yrs China has made it very plain that it no longer wishes to be inward-looking but wants to become the dominant power on the planet. As it happens, western liberal politics is actually enabling that to happen as we speak by rampant increasing trade, investment and exporting jobs (ie wealth) from the west to China. Can China supplant the US?  My pick is absolutely and given China's history and cultural outlook on the rest of the world, it would not be a benign power that upheld freedom but a highly controlling one ( such as in Orwell's book "1984"). Consider also the horrors of the "Cultural Revolution". (read book "Wild Swans" by Jung Chang)\nSeeing the growing weakness and decay of the US, China is currently spending up large on military capability that goes way beyond any reasonable defense needs. This already concerns the US and in 5-10yrs could match or even surpass.  \n\nGiven Ive chosen to focus on cultural competition, the other megatrend in  my view is that of Islamization (or Islamo-facism as some have described it). The muslim world view is very disturbing to a western liberal such as myself (read the koran yourself - see link in sources)and the recent aggressive action against western values and societies (from 9/11, to French riots, to Sydney riots etc) is just the tip of the iceberg. With western national identities and cultures being ever more diluted in favour of "multicultural societies" (which include massive Muslim enclaves - in Sydney the Police fear to enter such neighbourhoods), the collective will of these multi-cultural societies to stand against competion from other cultures has been substantially weakened and continues to erode from the inside. You need look no further than the impotence of the French to deal with the riots decisively. \nMuslim nations have chosen non-conventional warfare as they dont have the military capability or the expertise to wage open warefare. But terrorism from without, coupled with substantial populations of Muslims inside western countries (over 2 million in US; over 6 million in France; some 350,000 in/around Sydney)are a threat that the west is still largely  blind to. \nBut is it possible for Islamic nations to become a superpower?  Maybe - all its takes is for the US to become weaker and for a revised definition of what a superpower is. Indonesia (the most populous Muslim country with some 120 mill people has a substantial standing army or close to 200,000) could in theory overrun Australia / New Zealand to start with. While at present Australia has superiority in air and sea capability, the gap is not that great. New Zealand has no air force and tiny navy.   \nAmerica did take up the challenge post 9/11 and the limits of military power have been starkly exposed. \nIs America still the undesputed superpower? No. American economic power is also slipping fast. All hail the WTO and unbridled pursuit of short term, short sighted profit that ignores national interests !
438149
B... eventually. US took over most of Britain's mid-east role, France lost out in Vietnam and Algeria, and so on and so on.\n\nAnd the Warsaw Pact was between the USSR and Eastern European States from 1955 to 1991. Duh
877739
The west and not just the US has interfered in the Middle East since the 19th Century.  The US involvement began after WW II.  If the Middle east was not rich in natural gas and oil, the US would pay no heed to the Middle East.  It is all about a powerful country imposing their will on other countries when they do know the language, culture or religion.
532277
Come on lad, which country are you talking about yahoo answers is global? nd shouldn't you be doing your own homework, like researching this stuff up yourself!!!
722182
USA dictate to the world? can you honestly believe that? since we are the basis for most of the economies in the world you think that we would have a stronger voice but we do not. only time the world wants to hear from us is when we are helping them.
415311
over a hundred year period, America will cease to be the global force that it is today, the chances of Australia taking its place are slim. \n\nThe contenders at the moment seem to be a United Europe, China and India.
94367
America has become the pariah of the world: arrogant, selfish, self-centred, ignorant, pseudo-fascist, careless of world opinion, disregarding global warming, ignoring international law, greedy and ugly. The future lies with the East: China and India. It will take more than just ditching Bush and his criminal friends to change things. In the meantime, international hatred of the USA will drive it even further into militarism and prejudice.
553776
GLOBALIZATION\n\nThe politicians are being bribed to destroy America, we call these bribes campaign contributions. Monied interests who want to unify the Western Hemisphere into a single trade bloc from Canada to Chile have been supporting politicians who will make laws and policy decisions to bring about this goal. For years the ground work has quietly been laid, NAFTA, lax border enforcement, foreign aid to developing nations to impoversh those nations and make them subject to foreign money manipulation.\n\nWith the flood of illegals in the US the main opposition to this trade bloc, the US middle class, is being eliminated. Soon the middle class will vanish and there will be no group with the political will to resist the New World order being constructed against our interests.\n\nSo by allowing this massive influx of people into our nation it will destroy the middle class and stop the opposition for these trade blocs and ultimatly a New World Order.
660968
This should point you in the right direction:\n\nhttp://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/fourth_world/20718