Pax Americana

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by problem_child

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?

But what reason should an average American have to ask Questions or complain?

What´s good for America (and I think controlling most of the worlds Ressources is good for America ) is also good for the average American.
So, Complaining or questioning it about it could beconsidered unpatriotic.

[problem_child]

Okay, that's understandable, and at least they'd be being honest about it- which I can respect. But then you get all the 'We believe in freedom and democracy blah blah blah' stuff, why? What for? Why lie? They don't want resource rich 'developing world' nations doing what's in their own best interests, so why pretend?

[Proteus_MST]

I have the Impression, that he average American just stops thinking about it.
He just assumes that his Goverment has humanitarian Reasons for doing some things (and thereby avoids any conflict by arguing against the Opinion of the broader mass (or, as mentioned, to be considered unamerican)) and avoids so, to ask questions concerning other reasons the government may have for doing the things it does.

After all many things the american Government does can really be considered to be humanitarian and if America gets some more influence or the like, by doing them, it doesn´t harm.
(and other things which can´t be considered humanitarian just aren´t mentioned and come into the light years after they happened and when they come into the light there it is most of the times the old government which you can blame)

(Just an Impression I have)

[DinoDoc]

Re: Pax Americana

Originally posted by problem_child
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...

I'd prefer a more realist bent to it than neocon.

[GePap]

The average person in any country does not care about foreign policy insofar as it does not affect their lives. There are millions of Americas who think foreign aid makes up a significant portion of the US budget. If you told them it was inder 2% (or is it under 1%?), they would not believe you.

So the opinion of the masses is rather immaterial.

The world is changing: everyone speaks of the increadible military domintaiton of the US over the world: fine, we can beat any ohter country one on one in a war, but what about later? half our military is stuck in Iraq, which in terms of states is rather in the middle: now imagine we got stuck with Iran?

The US is not up for empire of any sort, as much as strategic thinkers may imagine: people are not willing to pay the price they would have to pay, in this time of automatic weapons and the internet and RPG's. We live in a time when technology gives states a greater and greater ability to control their people, so long as their people don't mind: but if the people mind, then the state is lossing the ability to hold on.

The US was at the height of its power in 1945: Our absolute power may be much greater today, but our relative power has been going down since then, and there is not much we can do about it continuing to go down. Certainly the US will be the dominat single player for many decades to come, but it's time at the top will end.

[Sprayber]

American taste for foreign adventure is limited. It is limited by the number of years and number of deaths the American public is willing to endure for each particular cause.

Face it folks, the US can't do everything it wants. In order to establish some sort of world peace it will take the efforts of like minded nations working together. Some things can be accomplished by a single nation but those days are comming to an end.

[HershOstropoler]

Yes, the biggest impediment for an American Empire is the unwillingness of Americans to bleed for it. Very sympathetic trait, just someone tell the rightwingers, please.

[Whaleboy]

What happens to all empires?

I don't think most Americans want to dominate the world culturally speaking, I mean, while it may be a popular prospect now, that wont last, and its fallacious nature will become, no, is becoming clear to Americans. If they do want to take over the world as it were, then they should be resisted, but I very much doubt that PNAC's dreams will be realised in the LONG term.

Proteus: I agree, but given time, I think people will grow out of this neo-conservatism.

Nonetheless, I have one word for people like the PNAC: China

[problem_child]

I think the US State has always found it easy to get round Americans unwillingness to whatever. Imminant threat and Eternal war have played well for these interests.

If it wasn't for the 'Communist Threat', the State wouldn't have gotten away with doing half the empirey type things it wanted to do. Now that's gone... there's the Eternal War against Terror to support imperial actions.

I think this is may be why there's such a disjoint between the perceptions of your average Jo American, and the actions of it's military/industrial complex abroad.

[DanS]

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.

Actually, the cost is not increasing and it has been very modest for a decade.

[problem_child]

So what's with the national deficit? (how many hundred billion is it now?)

[DanS]

Just look how much military spending is as a percentage of the economy. It is very low, at least by post WWII measures. And it's almost certainly very much lower than what the UK had in the 19th century (I don't have the figures on this though).

[problem_child]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Yes, the biggest impediment for an American Empire is the unwillingness of Americans to bleed for it. Very sympathetic trait, just someone tell the rightwingers, please.

ps- don't forget the use of client states that do most of the grim dirty work, like the many regimes supported in South and Central America, South East Asia and the Middle East. For the most part it is through these regimes (known variously as bastions against communism, regional champions of democracy and allies against terrorism) that most US interests are served. It's a good distancing technique.

Also I won't deny the UKs role as the number one liutenant/junior partner in this kind of thing.

[GePap]

Yes DanS, spending is so low that half our army need to sit in Iraq peacekeeping and doing mop up, and that is in a state with a relatively friendly population: not one were we face widespread popular resistance.

And the American people are not willing to spend much more of a percentage a year.

[HershOstropoler]

The US has usually gone for indirect control, but that has also drawbacks, like "hickups" a la the revolution in Iran.