Disturbing Fact Of The Day

**GoreBag** · 05-09-2005, 23:11

That's disturbing?

**Adrian II** · 05-09-2005, 23:12

Originally Posted by NeonGod

That's disturbing?

If you believe in Pax Americana, it is disturbing.

**Proletariat** · 05-09-2005, 23:54

Originally Posted by AdrianII

If you believe in Pax Americana, it is disturbing.

Why?

*peers outside her window while sipping her Freedom Pressed Coffee*

Looks pretty Pax to me.

**Adrian II** · 05-10-2005, 08:50

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Why?

*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.

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.

**PanzerJaeger** · 05-10-2005, 10:07

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.

**Franconicus** · 05-10-2005, 12:15

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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.

Just one remark, 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

**Adrian II** · 05-10-2005, 12:23

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

The trading, prosperous world (Europe, democratized Asia, South America to a certain extent) lives without fear of war or strife.

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.

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.

**Franconicus** · 05-10-2005, 12:59

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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.

**Big_John** · 05-10-2005, 11:13

Originally Posted by AdrianII

we had a thread about that and it turned out most people didn't know what hegemon means.

i used to trade hegemon cards...

**English assassin** · 05-10-2005, 11:56

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)

**Franconicus** · 05-10-2005, 12:06

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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.

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.

Adrian,

that is definitely disturbing to me!