There are at least 30 wars going on today, 15 of which the UN has classified as "major".
I heard this on the radio and i was wondering if it was true. I can think of a couple of wars, but not 30!
Printable View
There are at least 30 wars going on today, 15 of which the UN has classified as "major".
I heard this on the radio and i was wondering if it was true. I can think of a couple of wars, but not 30!
That's disturbing?
If you believe in Pax Americana, it is disturbing.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
Middle East
U.S. and UK vs. Iraq insurgents
Israel vs. Palestinian Authority/Hamas/Hezbollah/Palestinian separatists
Asia
Afghanistan: U.S., UK, and Coalition Forces vs. al-Qaeda and Taliban
India vs. Kashmiri separatist groups/Pakistan
India vs. Assam insurgents (various)
Indonesia vs. Aceh separatists
Indonesia vs. Christians and Muslims in Molucca Islands
Indonesia vs. Irian Jaya separatists
Nepal vs. Maoist rebels
Philippines vs. Mindanaoan separatists
(MILF/ASG)
Africa
Algeria vs. Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
Burundi: Tutsi vs. Hutu
Côte d'Ivoire vs. rebels
Democratic Republic of Congo and allies vs. Rwanda, Uganda, and indigenous rebels
Somalia vs. rival clans
Sudan vs. Darfur rebel groups
Uganda vs. Lord's Resistance Army (LRA)
Europe
Russia vs. Chechen separatists
Latin America
Colombia vs. National Liberation Army (ELN)
Colombia vs. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
Colombia vs. Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC)
Very disturbing, and probably true as well.
That's disturbing?
That was the name of the radio segment. Whether it is disturbing is up to opinion.
If you believe in Pax Americana, it is disturbing.
Either you were being sarcastic or you dont know much about that concept.
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
*peers outside her window while sipping her Freedom Pressed Coffee*
Looks pretty Pax to me.
OK, one more time for you and Panzerjager. Pax Romana was a period of circa two centuries when Rome had brought most of the known world under its military control, thus securing peace and prosperity for most of the peoples in that territory. Hence, Pax Romana meant peace not just for Rome, but for the known world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
Post-1989 American pretensions to secure 'global dominance' or 'hegemony' and to 'police the world' haven't materialised so far. It is all very well for you to look outside your window and be satisfied with the apparent serenity you perceive there, but it does not convince anyone that a Pax Americana has been established in today's world. Witness the failed attempt to pacify Iraq. Witness the other circa thirty wars going on right now.
In fact, the U.S. has been losing its position as a hegemon of the free world since the early 1970's. But that's another story, we had a thread about that and it turned out most people didn't know what hegemon means. These words are bandied about by Neocons since 2001 to give a semblance of coherence to their foreign policy notions.
You dont seem to understand Pax Romana. There were plenty of insurgencies and wars going on in the far off areas of the empire and beyond. The ones that put a hurt on Roman trade were dealt with and the ones that didnt affect Rome were ignored.
The trading, prosperous world (Europe, democratized Asia, South America to a certain extent) lives without fear of war or strife. Of course you could site Bosnia - but how important is that to the global trading community?
I believe we are living in a default Pax Americana - not an imposed order by the United States, but simply how the cards fell after WW2 and the cold war.
Because of American troops many important trading areas dont need to even bother spending money on a real army, and have become very prosperous indeed after ww2. Japan - Europe - South Korea.
So, to sound absolutely Roman, let the barbarians fight eachother as long as they want to as long as it doesnt affect Americas global interests.
i used to trade hegemon cards...Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
EVERYONE in Britain knows what a hegemon is, but then we are a nation of gardeners.
Here's a qu about Pax Americana. How do you identify when the barbarians are just fighting each other, or when it affects America's global interest (whatever they may be, and I doubt there is a consensus on that even in the white house)?
Take Nepal as a for instance. At the moment you may well feel the conflict between the Maoists and the royalists is a whole heap of nothing, (except for those of us who would rather some of the worlds best mountains were NOT being turned into war zones by dickheads.) Nothing of interest there.
But look how quickly Afganistan turned from being just a bunch of loonies fighting in the hills to the number one threat in the War On Terror. (tm)
Adrian,Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
that is definitely disturbing to me!
Just one remark, Panzerjager,Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Germany spend a lot of money during cold war. We had an army of 500,000 men (active) in the Western part only. And that is a lot for a country that did not attack any other nation or threatened it.
After the cold war Germany reduced their expanses on weapons. We have no neighbars to fear anymore and we have no intention to fight for their economical interest with military means.
Why is the US still spending so much money on military. I heard that they spend more than other NATO countries, Russia and China altogether. Who do they fear? - Sorry, this does not belong to this thread :bow:
The Caucasus, Colombia and various regions in Latin America, Afghanistan and neighbouring countries, large parts of Africa and large parts of the Middle East don't live in peace and prosperity. And what is more important in this respect: they are not under U.S. control. Not even Iraq is under U.S. control two years after the invasion. You can shut your eyes to these unpalatable truths and proclaim your Pax Minima but that doesn't diminish the fact that the world is being shaped by old and new rivals of the U.S. just as much as by Washington.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Since the failed Iraqi operation there is no longer a uni-polar world, wake up to it. And your leaders have lost you the one loyal ally you had left, which is the UK. The Brits won't support an attack on Iran or Syria, for instance. And whereas London never before accepted the notion of a common European defense initiative, in 2004 it did. These changes take a generation or more to take hold, but they are in progress. There will be new realignments, possibly even an alliance between the EU and China, and there will be new 'great games', for instance over the Eurasian mineral resources.
As for your barbarians, Panzerjager; on 9/11 they struck at the heart of the 'modern Rome' and in response to that, the modern Rome, for lack of decent allies, is defending itself with mercenaries and barbarian foederati.
Sorry Adrian, this time I have to dissent. After 9/11 the US all nations were ready to support the US fight against terror. Even old enemies like Iran showed their horror of what had happened in NY. The US then had the unique chance to become the leader of equal nations. In fact they did not want to be. They go for world domination.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
On that we agree. But upsurges in public emotion are rarely translated into corresponding policies. The sense of worldwide commitment in the wake of 9/11 has not been translated into a common policy against terrorism. In the same way, the wave of anti-American feeling in Europe after the Security Council ' Iraq' episode has not been translated into an overtly anti-American strategy. Governments have their own priorities and work along different lines. The British shift toward the EU and a common defense policy in 2004 is a good example of that. It is not as if we are suddenly enemies of the U.S. or something. We are growing apart. As a consequence, the American 'Empire' is now defended almost uniquely by American troops, mercenaries and obscure warlord allies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
That's the second time I've heard that Iran held mass protests against terrorism and in favor of the US immediately following 9/11. No kidding, all I ever saw at the time was a statement from their supreme leader (Khameni?) that we got what we deserved and it wouldn't shock him if we folded like a house of cards.
Can any of you provide links to this 'outpouring' of mass Iranian sympathy?
I remember nothing of the kind. And part of the outpouring of 'sympathy' for the U.S. elsewhere in the world was without doubt caused by fears that George W. Bush would crack and start to push all sorts of red buttons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
So we don't have a REAL army and we can all sleep easily in our beds thanks to the good ol' US of A? :laugh4:Quote:
You dont seem to understand Pax Romana. There were plenty of insurgencies and wars going on in the far off areas of the empire and beyond. The ones that put a hurt on Roman trade were dealt with and the ones that didnt affect Rome were ignored.
The trading, prosperous world (Europe, democratized Asia, South America to a certain extent) lives without fear of war or strife. Of course you could site Bosnia - but how important is that to the global trading community?
I believe we are living in a default Pax Americana - not an imposed order by the United States, but simply how the cards fell after WW2 and the cold war.
Because of American troops many important trading areas dont need to even bother spending money on a real army, and have become very prosperous indeed after ww2. Japan - Europe - South Korea.
So, to sound absolutely Roman, let the barbarians fight eachother as long as they want to as long as it doesnt affect Americas global interests.
In case you hadn't noticed a lot of Europe is involved in quite a lot of strife at the minute, mostly due to backing up our allies, and quite rightly so, the US.
I think I would rather live in a Pax Britannia...
I don't know if I'd characterize it as "mass", but here is a roundup of world leaders' reactions (including Iran, N.Korea & Libya):Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
http://www.september11news.com/Inter...alReaction.htm
I checked Reuters & UPI for photos of any large assembly of people with anti-terrorism aims; No Joy (not that they don't exist - just can't find any free ones).
Here's a transcript of one of many international message boards, expressing sympathy for the US from purportedly Iranian posters.
http://www.iranian.com/memory.html
So there is some evidence that positive messages of sympathy and support were put forward immediately post-911, from friends and enemies alike.
Three and a half years later, positive messages of sympathy and support are harder to find.
Yes, more money-making opportunities, and with big moustaches and cool looking cork helmets.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
The Caucasus, Colombia and various regions in Latin America, Afghanistan and neighbouring countries, large parts of Africa and large parts of the Middle East don't live in peace and prosperity. And what is more important in this respect: they are not under U.S. control. Not even Iraq is under U.S. control two years after the invasion. You can shut your eyes to these unpalatable truths and proclaim your Pax Minima but that doesn't diminish the fact that the world is being shaped by old and new rivals of the U.S. just as much as by Washington.
Did you read my post? America has never had an interest in controlling non profitable areas. If you will look at the major GNP nations, which live in strife?
%s of the global economy..
USA 32.9% 4.65%
Japan 13.4% 2.09% - Reliant on US
Germany 6.0% 1.36% - Occupied By US
Britain 4.6% 0.99% - Ally of US
France 4.2% 0.97% - Reliant on US
China 3.7% 20.84% - Economically reliant on US
Italy 3.5% 0.95% - Occupied by US
Canada 2.3% 0.51% - Reliant on US
Mexico 2.0% 1.62% - Economically reliant on US
If you will look at the list, all of those countries are tied to the US in some way or another. Some of them are more controlled than others - Japan Vs China - but none have any vested interest in attacking the US or eachother.
One would say that China is the least reliant on the US until you look at how their economy is set up.
You see, during and after the cold war, through trade and massive military build up, America ensured there would not be another Cold or Hot World War. Europe is powerless, Russia is now a "Strategic Partner", and America and China have tied their economies together so closely, a war would be ridiculously stupid. That was not the case with the former Soviet Union.
Since the failed Iraqi operation there is no longer a uni-polar world, wake up to it. And your leaders have lost you the one loyal ally you had left, which is the UK. The Brits won't support an attack on Iran or Syria, for instance. And whereas London never before accepted the notion of a common European defense initiative, in 2004 it did. These changes take a generation or more to take hold, but they are in progress. There will be new realignments, possibly even an alliance between the EU and China, and there will be new 'great games', for instance over the Eurasian mineral resources.
LoL youre living in a dream. "The Failed Iraqi Operation" ( :laugh4:) If you think the EU will ever have any power, if you think European leaders will ever be willing to spend any real money on a military again when they have the great American tit at their disposal, you have no concept of reality.
But i am sure that power will shift from one part of the globe to the other, as it always does. So what? As i said America found herself in this position and i think the country has done a good job with it. When the torch is passed to China, not to europe lol, then i think we can all be proud of how we managed the world. Not perfect, but certainly a lot better than global leaders before us.
As for your barbarians, Panzerjager; on 9/11 they struck at the heart of the 'modern Rome' and in response to that, the modern Rome, for lack of decent allies, is defending itself with mercenaries and barbarian foederati.
For lack of decent allies? You would insult Germany, Britain and France like that. Russia isnt decent enough? Saudi Arabia doesnt make your list as a decent country? Has America been attacked after 9/11..?
You can continue to live in your fantasy world of the crumbling "Great Satin" and a resurgence of European power, but thats all it is - a fantasy. I can see world power shifting to Asia, but Europe will be ball- less for a long time to come.
Why is the US still spending so much money on military. I heard that they spend more than other NATO countries, Russia and China altogether. Who do they fear? - Sorry, this does not belong to this thread
Because we have global committments. Of course America is hated for that, but its really a good situation for much of the free world.
Now you say "We dont have anyone to fear, why keep spending?" And thats a good question.
Look at the First Gulf War for example. Saddam had an army, i believe, larger than any European army at the time. A strong military was needed to deal with him.
European leaders dont like to admit it, but whenever a budget crunch comes along, they know they can cut the military because if a global crisis ever emerges, America will have the force neccessary to deal with it.
Whether its Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Europe or the Middle East, America has a lot more responsibility around the world than Germany for example. That is why the country spends as much as it does. :bow:
Occupied, eh? If you want a serious idea of modern trade relations, I suggest you read up on the steel tariff wars and the EU victory in December 2003.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Not yet. Americans are dying every day in Iraq though, whilst warlords are taking over the reins in the country. That should be a matter of serious concern, it's certainly no reason to 'LOL!' about...Quote:
Has America been attacked after 9/11..?
I've got tons at work to do today, so no time to do more than just skim this thread for now. But I still gaurantee this point of Panzer's goes unanswered.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
The idea that Pax Americana or Roma or whatever has anything to do with the entire globe is silly. A government's foriegn policy is always aimed at doing it's best to serve it's own citizens. Always. To do otherwise would be ineffectual at best and treasonous at worst.
Massive debt coupled with loss of economic clout and illusions of power will take care of the huge U.S. military advantage, just like it did with the Brits around 1900. Empires die slowly, from the inside out, and this one is going to take a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
Quite. ~;)Quote:
The idea that Pax Americana or Roma or whatever has anything to do with the entire globe is silly.
Although it benefits a country a lot if its companies can operate safely and with taxable profits and its citizens move about freely and safely. And keep competition firmly under the heel.Quote:
The idea that Pax Americana or Roma or whatever has anything to do with the entire globe is silly. A government's foriegn policy is always aimed at doing it's best to serve it's own citizens. Always. To do otherwise would be ineffectual at best and treasonous at worst.
Here here. I actually think America at 1900 was the ideal balance of diplomatic, economic & military focus. We could project power if we had to, but it wasn't what we were known for. In what was quite possibly his only significant contribution in his 4 years at the helm, President Calvin Coolidge said it best "The business of America is business". Not nationbuilding, not peacekeeping, not pacifying generational foes...Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
But we will work together for a better world; we haven't been celebrating May 8th for nothing. And you will feel safe in Amsterdam one day, you bat-wielding Palaeocon you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
:bow:
NM.
Apart from business (=trade) the U.S. was also known for its projection of democracy, which was just as important as its trade clout and its projection of military power. For some time after WWII, the three coincided in many ways. Since the 1970's however, projection of power has become more important than the projection of democracy. Around the same time, the U.S. stopped being the main pillar of the international system of trade and finance. That is the moment when the U.S. stopped being the hegemon of the free world. In fact, the triumph of democracy in many nations in the past twenty years was the fruit of internal struggles against tyrants who were often supported by the United States: South Africa, the Philippines, Brazil, Turkey, Taiwan, Uruguay. As someone wrote about 'Iraq' in The New Yorker: 'We can marvel at the power of democratic ideals. Perhaps they can even survive the embrace of George W. Bush.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Someone has a Chomsky overload ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
I don't like Chomsky. And what I wrote has nothing to do with Chomsky. Someone should read up on a subject before judging others...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Owww where's the love, sorry my stigma ran over your dogma geez ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Just don't mention the Chomster while I'm around, honey. :kiss:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony