Pax Americana

[problem_child]

Is it a good thing or a bad thing that the Project for a New American Century is all about America taking over the world? Do you think that American dominance world wide will make the Earth a better place to live... or is it something to be feared and avoided at all costs.

I of course have my own strong opinions on the matter, I'm sure you can guess what they are, but I am curious what American people think about their states designs for the futures of all nations (come to think of it I'm curious as to why the US public seems to buy the world-veiw it's fed). I know alot of Americans realy don't care what foreigners think of their country, but is that because they heartily agree with US foreign policy [America First stamp on the rest] or because they honeslty think US foreign policy is essentially benevolent...

If this thread just gets closed, that'll certainly do as an answer too I suppose. But I'm not just trolling, I really do want to know. In the UK alot of people just turn their brains off with the attitude
'I'll leave decisions like that [going to war etc] to my betters to decide, far be it for me to second guess the government, they know what they're doing, and they're doing it for our sake' which I think is a pretty negligent attitude for voters in a 'democracy' to take.

[HershOstropoler]

"Is it a good thing or a bad thing that the Project for a New American Century is all about America taking over the world?"

As an old german proverb says: "Können vor Lachen."

[problem_child]

and in English that means...

[The Viceroy]

In the past deference certainly was a problem in the UK, but I don't think this is the case now. Poll after poll showed that the British public was split on the issue of War .. and although I supported it, it was nothing to do with deference, and everything to do with believing it was right.

America has no manifest destiny, other than that which its people wish.

There is a huge difference between wanting all people to be free, and wanting to impose your rule on them. I think most americans wish for the first.

and in that, they will always have my support and good will.

[TheStinger]

Americans do care what people think of them, its just that they have a mental block when anyone says it possibly might not be the best country in every aspect in the world.

I also don't htink thay have any wish to rule other countries and since the end of the cold war I think they do actually want to encourage democracy. Of course they didn't use to do this and people have long memories

[problem_child]

Originally posted by The Viceroy
In the past deference certainly was a problem in the UK, but I don't think this is the case now. Poll after poll showed that the British public was split on the issue of War .. and although I supported it, it was nothing to do with deference, and everything to do with believing it was right.

America has no manifest destiny, other than that which its people wish.

There is a huge difference between wanting all people to be free, and wanting to impose your rule on them. I think most americans wish for the first.

and in that, they will always have my support and good will.

But that's not what their states foreign policy endorses, they consistantly work against that, a glance at the history of US involvement in SA, ME and South East Asia confirms that with depressing consistancy, which is what I don't get... how come most people in the US seem to defend that kind of thing... why do they buy the line? Is it because they really do think that whatever's done in the name of American dominance really does overide the human rights of people in other nations.

[The Viceroy]

Give some examples (with a little more detail) and we can discuss them.

[PLATO]

Well said Viceroy. I believe that is what most Americans want as well.

Many people say that Americans blindly follow the so called "military-industrial" complex. The truth is that most Americans share the same vision for the world that our government does. Freedom for all and the rule of law.

When it comes to crisis time in their country, the first question you hear on the street is "Where are the Americans?" People want help in overcoming oppression and America is where they turn. We are fortunate to be able to help. There will always be those who will resist freedom and we should make sure that we don't confuse the loud voice of the few with the desire for freedom that the majority have.

How can a desire for people to have the right of self determination ever be imperialism? This is propoganda from those who wish that they could impose their ideals on others and lament the fact that they have not the power to do so.

America does not always act with exactness and efficiency, but I believe that she acts with purpose...and that purpose is freedom and justice for all.

[CerberusIV]

I think a useful parallel can be drawn with Pax Britannica 1815-1914.

Napoleonic wars = WW1/WW2

followed by

One military/economic power with global interests and reach beyond any possible rivals.

A military weapon with no real rival to secure that domination - Royal Navy 1805 to 1912 cf. current US military but an increasing cost to maintain that advantage.

A period of patriotic belief in the rightness of purpose - Victorian Britain cf. USA now and for the next decade.

I would not push the analogy too far but IMO Pax Americana is with us already, not in terms of direct control but in terms of global influence.

However I also think that within 50 years mounting military, political and economic costs will bring it to an end. There are plenty of countries and groups out there who will take american support and money now but will eventually bite the hand that is feeding them.

[problem_child]

Chile, the overthrow of democraticaly elected Alende, and the installation of Pinoche, follwed by the internment and brutal killings and torturings of hundreds of thousands of leftists and students.

Indonesia, the overthow of Sukarno (wrong spelling I'm sure) who was a founding member of the Non-Aligned movement of developing world nations and persued nationalist interests (harnessing Indonesias resources for the benifit of Indonesian people, socialists policy etc, but not a communist or Soviet client orientated). This guy's government was overthrown with the aid of the CIA, who backed Sukarto, a militarist who proceeded to slaughter over 500, 000 'communist' civilians ticked off a list provided by the Americans. Indonsias sectors were then sold off to Western Corporate concerns, rubber, steel, the defence industry etc.

Iran. The brutal dictatorship of the Shar was one of the US's closest allies in the ME after Isreal. He brutaly oppressed his own people, and widened the gap between rich elite and the Iranian population using internal security services trained and backed by the Americans, French and Isrealis. When discontent grew, the US state heartily backed his use of force and torture to stay in power. When the Shar was finally overthrown, US policy then turned to Iraq to persue their interest, (aiding Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athists rise to power) were they were complicit in the invasion of Iran, and subsequent use of chemicla weapons etc gainst the Iranians and Kurds.

Nicaragua, where that countries attempts to persue policies that invested in the local infrastructure were against the interests of US corpos, the US then created and backed the notorious Contra group inassasinating teachers, doctors, coffeee farmers and local officials etc, untill the Nicaraguan government finally capitulated to US demands.

I could go on but... all this information and more details (and sources) are easily available in many books in any library.... actually I don't know how easy this information is availble in the States.

[problem_child]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
...
How can a desire for people to have the right of self determination ever be imperialism? This is propoganda from those who wish that they could impose their ideals on others and lament the fact that they have not the power to do so.

...

The fact is the US consistantly opposes the initiatives of indiginous people persuing nationalist goals that seek to benifit their own nation first, and favours corporate interests and the small elites in those nations that also benifit from US corporate interests. Somehow the US public seems oblivious to this, and actually believes their government stands for the exact opposit of what it actually persues.

One document written in the 40's, after WW2 actually states that

'We [the US] costitute 6 percent of the worlds population, yet now control 85 percent of it's recources, our job now is to ensure that this state of affairs continues'

I can source this more accurately later, but this attitude is by no means what I would call consistant with freedom and democrac in the world. It is however an attitude that US governments have worked to ever since.

[problem_child]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
I think a useful parallel can be drawn with Pax Britannica 1815-1914.

Napoleonic wars = WW1/WW2

followed by

One military/economic power with global interests and reach beyond any possible rivals.

A military weapon with no real rival to secure that domination - Royal Navy 1805 to 1912 cf. current US military but an increasing cost to maintain that advantage.

A period of patriotic belief in the rightness of purpose - Victorian Britain cf. USA now and for the next decade.

I would not push the analogy too far but IMO Pax Americana is with us already, not in terms of direct control but in terms of global influence.

However I also think that within 50 years mounting military, political and economic costs will bring it to an end. There are plenty of countries and groups out there who will take american support and money now but will eventually bite the hand that is feeding them.

I agree with this, it is the US tax payer that pays the mounting costs, WHY AREN'T THEY COMPLAINING!? is this why they are led to believe what they (generaly) believe, so they don't resist feeding the Complex?

I also think that Pax Americana has been with us for a while now, in my opinion it grew it's first hairs and broke it's voice after WW2. Been getting bigger ever since.

[problem_child]

[SlowwHand]

Why don't you read something besides "Wacko" sites ?

Hell. Any freak can create a site.
Look no further than Mark and Dan.

[problem_child]

The PNAC site is created by a thinktank that current US administration thuroughly endorses, you will see the likes of Condoleza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld as proponents of that particular definition of US policy.