The end of 'Pax Americana' ....?

The end of 'Pax Americana' ....? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tweakabelle -> The end of 'Pax Americana' ....? (8/31/2012 3:49:38 AM)
In an intriguing paper, Canadian diplomat author and academic Peter Dale Scott analyses some of the issues thrown up by the decline in US power and prestige, the end of the “Pax Americana”. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32315.htm Scott argues that the origins of World Wars I & II lie in the decline of the “Pax Britannia”, and that similar factors are at play in today’s world. He focuses on today's self-generating wars (such as the Wars on Drugs and Terror), decline in democratic institutions in the USA and the increasing militarization of the world. Scott’s solution involves re-asserting democratic control over the ‘war machines’, de-militarising the ‘War on Terror’ and a strengthening of democratic institutions in the US. While I don’t necessarily agree with either the analysis or the solution Scott presents, I found his paper thought provoking. The issues he raises are well worth examining. What do other posters think?

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: The end of 'Pax Americana' ....? (8/31/2012 3:59:28 AM)
What we are seeing today is the same collapse of empire which took place in Europe as a result of the two World Wars. The empires which emerged from the collapse of Rome finally got so tattered and worn that they wound up destroying themselves in a fit of glory. As the Canadian author pointed out, this is now happening to the US of A, and it is simply the inevitable logic of history. Practically every country has tried their hand at imperialism at one time or another, including - believe it or not - Lithuania, Portugal, and Belgium. The result was always the same: they prospered and grew powerful for a while, but then the weight of their endless wars wore them down until they couldn't do it any more. Right now we are starting to see a shift in the center of world power to Asia, with China and India being the two big players, and Japan and Korea as mid-level players. The USA and Europe will decline into regional players - likely by mid-century. [sm=dunno.gif]

DesideriScuri -> RE: The end of 'Pax Americana' ....? (8/31/2012 6:04:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle In an intriguing paper, Canadian diplomat author and academic Peter Dale Scott analyses some of the issues thrown up by the decline in US power and prestige, the end of the “Pax Americana”. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32315.htm Scott argues that the origins of World Wars I & II lie in the decline of the “Pax Britannia”, and that similar factors are at play in today’s world. He focuses on today's self-generating wars (such as the Wars on Drugs and Terror), decline in democratic institutions in the USA and the increasing militarization of the world. Scott’s solution involves re-asserting democratic control over the ‘war machines’, de-militarising the ‘War on Terror’ and a strengthening of democratic institutions in the US. While I don’t necessarily agree with either the analysis or the solution Scott presents, I found his paper thought provoking. The issues he raises are well worth examining. What do other posters think? Pish posh! Pax Americana isn't coming to an end. That ended quite a while ago. When did we install Hussein? When did we "create" al Qaeda and the Taliban? The way we've been throwing our weight around, it's more accurately described as Pox Americana. Yes, I'm against American Imperialism. Yes, I'm supportive of bringing all our men and women in the military back stateside. We need to re-assert American Imperialism within our own borders before we can even consider forcing ourselves on other countries (and we should decline to do so after considering it).

vincentML -> RE: The end of 'Pax Americana' ....? (8/31/2012 6:42:04 AM)
What is notable in Scott's solution is the pass he gives to the ambitions of the Saudi Wahhabis which date back to 1801 at least. The American arms industry and military are bloated and cut backs are warrented. We have been fighting an asymmetrical enemy with a World War II army, or a modern army with WWII mind set. New tactics are needed. We confuse fighting terrorists with fighting insurgencies. We clearly need to abandon the notion of spreading democracy and nation building abroad and try a hand at expanding democracy and nation building at home. But I don't think we can retreat completely from confronting Wahhabis expansionism. Certainly not where it effects us directly. Unfortunately, I doubt if we will see a cut back in Military spending.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The end of 'Pax Americana' ....? (8/31/2012 11:54:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML What is notable in Scott's solution is the pass he gives to the ambitions of the Saudi Wahhabis which date back to 1801 at least. The American arms industry and military are bloated and cut backs are warrented. We have been fighting an asymmetrical enemy with a World War II army, or a modern army with WWII mind set. New tactics are needed. We confuse fighting terrorists with fighting insurgencies. We clearly need to abandon the notion of spreading democracy and nation building abroad and try a hand at expanding democracy and nation building at home. But I don't think we can retreat completely from confronting Wahhabis expansionism. Certainly not where it effects us directly. Unfortunately, I doubt if we will see a cut back in Military spending. Sadly, we won't see a defense budget cutback. I even agree that we need to concentrate our focus on our domestic issues and get our house straight before we try to build a house for someone else. I do not agree with your military descriptions, though. We do have a very modern military. Had we had a WWII mindset, we'd have gone in guns a-blazing and just romped over any and everything. We were playing doctor with our military. Surgically eradicating the bad guys with as few civilian injuries as possible (not a bad goal, but when it's becomes larger than the actual goal of the military operation, it loses its luster). Essentially, we are training military to the highest standards and then giving them slingshots and Nerf guns to fight with.

vincentML -> RE: The end of 'Pax Americana' ....? (8/31/2012 1:08:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML What is notable in Scott's solution is the pass he gives to the ambitions of the Saudi Wahhabis which date back to 1801 at least. The American arms industry and military are bloated and cut backs are warrented. We have been fighting an asymmetrical enemy with a World War II army, or a modern army with WWII mind set. New tactics are needed. We confuse fighting terrorists with fighting insurgencies. We clearly need to abandon the notion of spreading democracy and nation building abroad and try a hand at expanding democracy and nation building at home. But I don't think we can retreat completely from confronting Wahhabis expansionism. Certainly not where it effects us directly. Unfortunately, I doubt if we will see a cut back in Military spending. Sadly, we won't see a defense budget cutback. I even agree that we need to concentrate our focus on our domestic issues and get our house straight before we try to build a house for someone else. I do not agree with your military descriptions, though. We do have a very modern military. Had we had a WWII mindset, we'd have gone in guns a-blazing and just romped over any and everything. We were playing doctor with our military. Surgically eradicating the bad guys with as few civilian injuries as possible (not a bad goal, but when it's becomes larger than the actual goal of the military operation, it loses its luster). Essentially, we are training military to the highest standards and then giving them slingshots and Nerf guns to fight with. I did not intend to criticize the Military, only the strategists. Surgically eradicating the bad guys NOW, yes. But both Iraq invasions were essentially old style, as was the 'surge' in Pakistan, don't you think? More importantly, I have been thinking about the comparison drawn by Scott between the Brit Empire and the American Influence. I mean Empire of course but some here recoil at the thought of an American Empire. [Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need some sobering truth telling?] Again anyway, I was wondering were the British classes negatively effected in the long run by the loss of Empire? By WWII they were. But after that did not Britain rise to a certain prosperity in the 80s and 90s as we did in America? What difference was the loss of Empire to the average Chap over there? What difference would it be to the average Joe here? Who benefits from Empire? What is the loss if we turn much of our resources inward while maintaining a technically superior Defense?

DesideriScuri -> RE: The end of 'Pax Americana' ....? (9/1/2012 4:44:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I did not intend to criticize the Military, only the strategists. Surgically eradicating the bad guys NOW, yes. But both Iraq invasions were essentially old style, as was the 'surge' in Pakistan, don't you think? I don't think you were criticizing the military at all. I completely agree that it's the strategies used that were in error. I'm almost willing to bet that it wasn't even the military strategists in error, but those who were putting constraints on those very strategists. Both Iraq invasions were "old style" invasions, yes. And, both were quite successful, were they not? How long did it take us to get to Baghdad? Yes, Iraqi's, if memory serves, were surrendering at every settling of the dust, but that's a good thing, really. The problems began once we got there. While I'm not saying we should have just demolished all the mosques, if we had allowed our men and women to return fire wherever and whenever, the resistance would have crumbled faster. We forced our troops into the situation where they were under fire and could do little more than hide because of where the shots were coming from. Essentially, we were placing being PC ahead of the lives of our troops. And, that happened under Bush, which really pissed me off back then. I was vocal in my dissent, too, but I wasn't exploring my kinky side, so I wasn't even on here yet. 'Nam changed a lot of stuff. The media became closer to the action. "War is Hell" was stated by someone and it's absolutely true. The things that happen during a war are not nice. They are not for the weak of heart or the squeamish. War is brutal and bloody. War is not larping, where you can get up, congratulate your vanquished foe, and then go out for some brews. quote: More importantly, I have been thinking about the comparison drawn by Scott between the Brit Empire and the American Influence. I mean Empire of course but some here recoil at the thought of an American Empire. [Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need some sobering truth telling?] Again anyway, I was wondering were the British classes negatively effected in the long run by the loss of Empire? By WWII they were. But after that did not Britain rise to a certain prosperity in the 80s and 90s as we did in America? What difference was the loss of Empire to the average Chap over there? What difference would it be to the average Joe here? Who benefits from Empire? What is the loss if we turn much of our resources inward while maintaining a technically superior Defense? Who benefits from Empire? The Emperors, mainly. The average Joe would probably see a better standard of living if resources were turned inward instead of outward. And, that is something I've been talking about for a few years now, too (since 2009 when I finally read into why Ron Paul holds the views he holds regarding the military, rather than just hearing the sound bites). Our imperialism is why I changed it to Pox Americana.

Aswad -> RE: The end of 'Pax Americana' ....? (9/1/2012 6:37:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Essentially, we are training military to the highest standards and then giving them slingshots and Nerf guns to fight with. This hardly seems like an accurate description. You're training parts of your military to the highest standards, but by no means all of it. For instance, the advanced sniper training is what we consider basic training for a sniper, and from what I've seen the term 'scout' sniper is little more than what we expect all snipers to master. The marines seem comparable to our paramilitary forces in several terrains. This also makes perfect sense, since you have a much larger military in terms of how many units are being trained and maintained (per capita, we have about twice as many both in total and actives, but then we also have more money per capita to spend). With more empasis on aggression, one must expect higher casualties and thus train more people to a lower standard, a matter of cost efficiency (which doesn't matter as much to us, since we're filthy rich). I do agree that the equipment is below par, though. IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: The end of 'Pax Americana' ....? (9/1/2012 7:05:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri if we had allowed our men and women to return fire wherever and whenever, the resistance would have crumbled faster. From what I've seen, the converse appears to be true. What do you base this conclusion on? quote: Essentially, we were placing being PC ahead of the lives of our troops. It's called rules of engagement. Some might call it taking the moral high ground, a departure from "might makes right". If you were going to disregard rules of engagement, a few thermobaric warheads would have left behind glass and the ashes of civilians, with the destruction of the enemy as an incidental benefit of the genocide. For practical purposes, that's the best definition of genocide: killing lots of people instead of adhering to rules of engagement. The desire to avoid decimation of civilian populations in a war is why nations have agreed to try to bring ethics into warfare by having rules of engagement. This is also why 9/11 was reprehensible: it was an instance of what you suggest, i.e. attacking the enemy without regard for civilian losses. The attackers had a legitimate cause, and it was a response, rather than an act of aggression. However, their chosen target was invalid because it was surrounded by civilians. An attractive and effective target (trillions in debt and countless body bags are a testament to this), but not a valid target. Unless you abandon the rules of engagement yourself, of course. quote: "War is Hell" was stated by someone and it's absolutely true. The things that happen during a war are not nice. They are not for the weak of heart or the squeamish. War is brutal and bloody. Which is why rules of engagement are there to confine wars to the belligerent parties, so the hell is being brought to those that have agreed to get into that hell, rather than to those that happen to be in the general area. You could even frame it similarly to kink: beating someone up while you're sodomizing them is poor form unless you have consent. Raising a weapon to someone constitutes consent to potentially lethal violence. But the civilians are bystanders that haven't consented. Meaning you need to keep your attacks on target, with positive identification of the belligerent (consenting) parties. Cheering for one team isn't consent to violence, it's just favoring one party. I don't think it's odd to favor the home team. quote: The average Joe would probably see a better standard of living if resources were turned inward instead of outward. And, that is something I've been talking about for a few years now, too (since 2009 when I finally read into why Ron Paul holds the views he holds regarding the military, rather than just hearing the sound bites). Our imperialism is why I changed it to Pox Americana. Amen. IWYW, — Aswad.

Real0ne -> RE: The end of 'Pax Americana' ....? (9/1/2012 7:10:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I did not intend to criticize the Military, only the strategists. Surgically eradicating the bad guys NOW, yes. But both Iraq invasions were essentially old style, as was the 'surge' in Pakistan, don't you think? I don't think you were criticizing the military at all. I completely agree that it's the strategies used that were in error. I'm almost willing to bet that it wasn't even the military strategists in error, but those who were putting constraints on those very strategists. Both Iraq invasions were "old style" invasions, yes. And, both were quite successful, were they not? How long did it take us to get to Baghdad? Yes, Iraqi's, if memory serves, were surrendering at every settling of the dust, but that's a good thing, really. The problems began once we got there. While I'm not saying we should have just demolished all the mosques, if we had allowed our men and women to return fire wherever and whenever, the resistance would have crumbled faster. We forced our troops into the situation where they were under fire and could do little more than hide because of where the shots were coming from. Essentially, we were placing being PC ahead of the lives of our troops. And, that happened under Bush, which really pissed me off back then. I was vocal in my dissent, too, but I wasn't exploring my kinky side, so I wasn't even on here yet. 'Nam changed a lot of stuff. The media became closer to the action. "War is Hell" was stated by someone and it's absolutely true. The things that happen during a war are not nice. They are not for the weak of heart or the squeamish. War is brutal and bloody. War is not larping, where you can get up, congratulate your vanquished foe, and then go out for some brews. quote: More importantly, I have been thinking about the comparison drawn by Scott between the Brit Empire and the American Influence. I mean Empire of course but some here recoil at the thought of an American Empire. [Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need some sobering truth telling?] Again anyway, I was wondering were the British classes negatively effected in the long run by the loss of Empire? By WWII they were. But after that did not Britain rise to a certain prosperity in the 80s and 90s as we did in America? What difference was the loss of Empire to the average Chap over there? What difference would it be to the average Joe here? Who benefits from Empire? What is the loss if we turn much of our resources inward while maintaining a technically superior Defense? Who benefits from Empire? The Emperors, mainly. The average Joe would probably see a better standard of living if resources were turned inward instead of outward. And, that is something I've been talking about for a few years now, too (since 2009 when I finally read into why Ron Paul holds the views he holds regarding the military, rather than just hearing the sound bites). Our imperialism is why I changed it to Pox Americana. nothing that is planned and done at the top levels of government is an error. Never has been never will be. People need to get it through their heads that we are in fact living in the matrix.

Real0ne -> RE: The end of 'Pax Americana' ....? (9/1/2012 7:12:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Essentially, we are training military to the highest standards and then giving them slingshots and Nerf guns to fight with. This hardly seems like an accurate description. You're training parts of your military to the highest standards, but by no means all of it. For instance, the advanced sniper training is what we consider basic training for a sniper, and from what I've seen the term 'scout' sniper is little more than what we expect all snipers to master. The marines seem comparable to our paramilitary forces in several terrains. This also makes perfect sense, since you have a much larger military in terms of how many units are being trained and maintained (per capita, we have about twice as many both in total and actives, but then we also have more money per capita to spend). With more empasis on aggression, one must expect higher casualties and thus train more people to a lower standard, a matter of cost efficiency (which doesn't matter as much to us, since we're filthy rich). I do agree that the equipment is below par, though. IWYW, — Aswad. well back in the 70's/80's when american kids sat scores didnt look as nice as asian they corrected it by lowering the ratings 10 points.

Rule -> RE: The end of 'Pax Americana' ....? (9/1/2012 9:33:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle (such as the Wars on Drugs What do other posters think? I think that there would be no "war on drugs" if people stopped using drugs.

Rule -> RE: The end of 'Pax Americana' ....? (9/1/2012 9:46:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne nothing that is planned and done at the top levels of government is an error. Never has been never will be. People need to get it through their heads that we are in fact living in the matrix. Quoted for truth.

Real0ne -> RE: The end of 'Pax Americana' ....? (9/1/2012 9:51:12 AM)
aint how it works. dubya declared a 100 year war on a fiction called "terror". The international community are still fighting over exactly how to apply it. the purpose is that it gets around the constitutional protections and individual rights and gaurantees of virtually all countries by the use of "reasonableness" "exigency" and "necessity. Now as a result they created the worlds largest monopoly court system on the planet for anyone who does not "go along to get along". Well combined with the amazing stupidity of american people at large to see through the scheme.

tj444 -> RE: The end of 'Pax Americana' ....? (9/1/2012 9:51:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle (such as the Wars on Drugs What do other posters think? I think that there would be no "war on drugs" if people stopped using drugs. lol I dont think its even legal to grow hemp in the US (unless that has changed recently).. the war on drugs is ridiculous and a waste of resources but hey, if the US wants to blow big buck$ on that then let em.. much better use of money than helping the homeless or poor seniors, kids that go to school starving, bettering education or that kinda commie stuff.. [8\|]

Real0ne -> RE: The end of 'Pax Americana' ....? (9/1/2012 10:01:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle (such as the Wars on Drugs What do other posters think? I think that there would be no "war on drugs" if people stopped using drugs. lol I dont think its even legal to grow hemp in the US (unless that has changed recently).. the war on drugs is ridiculous and a waste of resources but hey, if the US wants to blow big buck$ on that then let em.. much better use of money than helping the homeless or poor seniors, kids that go to school starving, bettering education or that kinda commie stuff.. [8\|] again the operative word here is "WAR" not drugs. Drugs are merely an accessory. A product brought forward and inherited from england. What is MI6 and who are their american cousins? Lets start with the opium wars around 1830 where england tried to FORCE CHINA TO USE OPIUM against their laws. The king and the east india company enjoy the same bed. They wanted to control china through commercethe same way they control the US. the commerce clause. the point being that as long as america is at some kind of war regardless if its real or not by simple declaration they now have the ability to invoke the war powers act hence getting around the constitution. That is one of several reasons american has been at and will forever be at eternal war, even if its just a cold one. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/vomiting-2075.gif[/image]

tj444 -> RE: The end of 'Pax Americana' ....? (9/1/2012 10:08:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle What do other posters think? I think the US is sooooooo screwed.. I have said that before.. And yes, i think the US has been losing its place as #1 in the world and that will take another decade or two but it will happen.. China is likely gonna take its place.. its not just the war on drugs or terrorism, its also (imo) the internal paralysis of the US voters and govt.. the Rs vs the Ds.. nothing gets done.. whatever good ideas that try to get implemented get watered down to become ineffective money wasters.. There is a book i wanna read called "Becoming China's Bitch.. I havent read it yet, i want to see if the library has it first.. Has anyone here read it? The one big negative of the book imo is that the author is a former partner at Goldman Sachs.. [8\|] so not sure what his opinion is actually worth.. [:D] http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Chinas-Bitch-Catastrophes-Avoid/dp/1618580051/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346518677&sr=8-1&keywords=becoming+china%27s+bitch

Real0ne -> RE: The end of 'Pax Americana' ....? (9/1/2012 10:19:44 AM)
the laws here have become completely obliterated and even for those who find their way through that labrinth of bullshit there so many ways to construe this shit that they can force you where ever they want to go because they got the guns. Well the authority to use their guns against anyone who does not go along to get along. I highly recommend people watch the above video I posted and follow up by looking up the patents along with the stolen ones. Its about a girl who died from the radiation completely free of the brain cancer thanks to his work. That is the american gubafia protecting the people.

kdsub -> RE: The end of 'Pax Americana' ....? (9/1/2012 10:22:18 AM)
quote: China is likely gonna take its place.. I think in a few years China will be in the same boat as other industrial countries. A growing middle class will demand more freedom causing political upheavals and a lack of resources will slow the economy. They are growing too fast and soon their industrial base will be undercut by other developing counties just as the US economy has been. The only saving grace for China will be the ability of the government to suppress the movement of industry to other third world counties. But this will only slow the decline. China will remain powerful even in decline but will not be able to dominate the western world...in my opinion anyway. In the end we will have an economical stand off which will not be all bad. The so called third world countries will continue to upgrade the living conditions of their populations. Of course all this could be changed by religious and ethnic conflicts which could throw the world into war. Butch

vincentML -> RE: The end of 'Pax Americana' ....? (9/1/2012 11:23:05 AM)
quote: I think in a few years China will be in the same boat as other industrial countries. A growing middle class will demand more freedom causing political upheavals and a lack of resources will slow the economy. Has already begun I think. quote: They are growing too fast and soon their industrial base will be undercut by other developing counties just as the US economy has been. The only saving grace for China will be the ability of the government to suppress the movement of industry to other third world counties. But this will only slow the decline. Vietnam is now an alternative, Butch. Probably Myanmar in the future. quote: China will remain powerful even in decline but will not be able to dominate the western world...in my opinion anyway. I recall back in the 80s when Japanese corporations were here buying buildings and golf courses . . . right at the top of the property market then. quote: Of course all this could be changed by religious and ethnic conflicts which could throw the world into war. Ya really think there's a chance of that happening? [8\|]

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.859375E-02