coercive power vs cooperative power
One night a friend and i was discussing about world power when the discussion soon became a heated debate about coercive power and cooperative power. I respect the intelligent of alot of people here, and i would like to hear what everyone has to say. Which aspect hold more influence on power, coercive or cooperative? Did the United States became world power through military might or cultural influence and ideology?
To your last question about the United States, it was both. With luck and allowing the other major countries to demolish each other. Debate all you want about it being accidental or not.
But not until after WW1 did the US have any real power. WW1 had all the major European countries in a major resource sapping slug fest while we just basically sat back and watched.
We entered later on the side we thought would win, partook in the spoils, and while the rest of the world was in deep debt and depression, we rebounded rather well and became the world power. This intensified after WW2 but it started then, in the late Teens, and 20's.
Originally posted by Tptmanno1
To your last question about the United States, it was both. With luck and allowing the other major countries to demolish each other. Debate all you want about it being accidental or not.
But not until after WW1 did the US have any real power. WW1 had all the major European countries in a major resource sapping slug fest while we just basically sat back and watched.
We entered later on the side we thought would win, partook in the spoils, and while the rest of the world was in deep debt and depression, we rebounded rather well and became the world power. This intensified after WW2 but it started then, in the late Teens, and 20's.
obviously you know alot about history, so i want to ask you, is bloodshed the major influenced of power? I understand your reasoning from the above post, but personally, is bloodshed the major influenced of power?