The Pax Americana is Dead

[carlfense]

 

Weakness. Fecklessness. No credibility. Tyrannical.

If that was aimed at me it missed the mark. That's not what I am saying.

 

It wasn't! Sorry.

[tschu]

The reason that I didn't think the OP warranted anything resembling a serious response is that

 

A) like Knapp stated, this peace is sort of a false categorization; there has been constant conflict throughout - just not any WWII level global wars, and

B) it's actually more peaceful than ever. Really nothing has significantly changed under Obama, for better or worse. It seems that if Obama was to get involved in say Syria or Ukraine, we'd all hate it, but since he's not getting involved he's wishy-washy and weak? I don't get that logic. So really this thread is mourning the false death of something that didn't really truly exist in the first place.

 

[knapplc]

Has there been a utopian peace in the world over the last 100 years? Heck no.

 

However, to think that America hasn't been a part of keeping at least some type of peace in many parts of the world with force is being either not honest or naive.

 

Today, the world has erupted in violence on many fronts which lead to this question. No, I don't necessarily blame Obama for this. Maybe some do but not me.

 

America is losing their ability to hold down aggression in some corners of the world. Some of that is our own fault. For instance, taking out Saddam replaced one horrible tyrant with a very unstable government which has lead to more and more violence.

 

In a way, our wars in the ME lead to (or at least contributed to) the Arab Spring which has lead to some of the violence in other parts of the region. This is exacerbated by the fact we are pulling our troops out of the region on several fronts. Again, I don't really blame Obama for this. The American public is tired of being there and footing the bill in both dollars and lives. I am included in that group.

 

Our presence there in some way or another over the last 50-60 years has kept a certain level of peace. That is also one large reason why people there hate us so much. The problem is, when we pull out, those people who hate us so much end up killing each other. Hmmmm....so, what happens?....we are now are seeing our government exert our force again in air strikes and a small group of boots on the ground to try to bring back some type of peace.

 

Pax______ doesn't mean (at least to me) that there is a utopian love and peace amongst everyone in the world produced by our military. It simply means that we have prevented groups of people from exterminating each other. I believe we have done that over the last 50-60 years.

 

Are you kidding? You do not believe this, there's no way.

 

America is keeping peace in "many parts of the world?" Where? How?

 

You can't keep peace by selling guns & bombs to people. Let's look at where we've sold said weapons:

 

 

Shockingly, the countries to which we are exporting weapons are the very countries having the most trouble right now. That isn't America spreading peace, it's sowing war, as a business model, for profit.

 

Who's not being honest here?

 

 

 

 

 

And BRB's personal definition of pax _________ is irrelevant to this discussion. The OP comically claims that some "pax Americana" ever existed, and that it's death is now to be put at the feet of Barack Obama. Moving the goalposts with some personal definition is at best misguided, and is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[BigRedBuster]

Are you kidding? You do not believe this, there's no way.

America is keeping peace in "many parts of the world?" Where? How?

You can't keep peace by selling guns & bombs to people.

 

As I said, has it been a utopian peace where everyone loves each other and nobody fights? NO.

 

However, here are just a few places where our presence has kept people from being killed or exterminated.

 

a) Israel = OK....I'm sure you are spewing something all over your computer about now. However, without us, Israel would have been exterminated by now. Are we selling guns and bombs to them? Yes, and that has kept them competitive in the arms race with their Arab neighbors who are buying guns from other places.

 

b) Korea = Once fighting has stopped, our presence there has prevented North Korea from attacking and taking over south Korea. Have we sold guns to South Korea? I'm sure we have. But, without us there South Korea wouldn't even exist.

 

c) Eastern Europe = After WWII we have been there ever since as a counter balance with the power of Russia. Without us there, we would have seen many examples in Eastern Europe just like what we are seeing in Ukraine.

 

Are all these places an example of love and everyone dancing in peace? No. but, our military presence there (and selling them guns and bombs) have prevented aggression from other forces and kept people alive.

[knapplc]

 

Are you kidding? You do not believe this, there's no way.

America is keeping peace in "many parts of the world?" Where? How?

You can't keep peace by selling guns & bombs to people.

 

As I said, has it been a utopian peace where everyone loves each other and nobody fights? NO.

 

However, here are just a few places where our presence has kept people from being killed or exterminated.

 

a) Israel = OK....I'm sure you are spewing something all over your computer about now. However, without us, Israel would have been exterminated by now. Are we selling guns and bombs to them? Yes, and that has kept them competitive in the arms race with their Arab neighbors who are buying guns from other places.

 

b) Korea = Once fighting has stopped, our presence there has prevented North Korea from attacking and taking over south Korea. Have we sold guns to South Korea? I'm sure we have. But, without us there South Korea wouldn't even exist.

 

c) Eastern Europe = After WWII we have been there ever since as a counter balance with the power of Russia. Without us there, we would have seen many examples in Eastern Europe just like what we are seeing in Ukraine.

 

Are all these places an example of love and everyone dancing in peace? No. but, our military presence there (and selling them guns and bombs) have prevented aggression from other forces and kept people alive.

 

 

We're not just moving goalposts here, we're switching sports entirely.

 

The very definition of a peace like the pax Romana is zero war. Zero, as in, nothing whatsoever. So any discussion on this topic not using that definition is irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

It's hard to see where you're even going in this thread. You're admitting that the regions of "peace" you put forth as examples are rife with conflict. There's no assertion in anything you're saying that said conflict is a product of any particular president's policies, successes or failures. There's no assertion that there was a pax Americana as defined in the OP, or that if one existed, that it's now over.

 

We're discussing the absurdity of the claim in the OP, how it never existed, and how the blame being laid in the OP for its disappearance is laughable. You're talking about no peace that is defined by this discussion, no causation related to the continuance or end of said peace, and no reason why said peace did or did not exist, or does or does not exist.

 

It appears you're having a discussion that nobody else is having, started by your request in post #4 to discuss the topic at hand.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

We're not just moving goalposts here, we're switching sports entirely.

 

 

I'm not aware of any war on the Korean peninsula since the 1950s.

 

I'm not aware of any war in Eastern Europe with Russia since the 1940s.

[knapplc]

 

Why not discuss the topic

 

 

 

Indeed. We're using pretzel logic to twist this into some kind of reality, when not one but two different charts I've posted show there never has been a pax Americana.

 

But let's discuss the topic, BRB, as you demand here.

 

Using the definition of a pax ________, when was the pax Americana? When did it end? Who ended it? How, and why? The examples you've given so far are based on your own definition, which is not part & parcel of this topic. Sticking to the topic, please answer these questions.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

But let's discuss the topic, BRB, as you demand here.

 

Using the definition of a pax ________, when was the pax Americana? When did it end? Who ended it? How, and why? The examples you've given so far are based on your own definition, which is not part & parcel of this topic. Sticking to the topic, please answer these questions.

 

Pax______ basically means the use of military force or the threat of that force to prevent wars. Correct? If I am wrong on that, then I guess I'm misunderstanding and no need to go farther.

 

So...if I am correct, I gave two examples of places in the world where our military presence and the threat of using that force has prevented another force from starting a war.

 

What am I missing?

[knapplc]

 

 

 

But let's discuss the topic, BRB, as you demand here.

 

Using the definition of a pax ________, when was the pax Americana? When did it end? Who ended it? How, and why? The examples you've given so far are based on your own definition, which is not part & parcel of this topic. Sticking to the topic, please answer these questions.

 

Pax______ basically means the use of military force or the threat of that force to prevent wars. Correct? If I am wrong on that, then I guess I'm misunderstanding and no need to go farther.

 

So...if I am correct, I gave two examples of places in the world where our military presence and the threat of using that force has prevented another force from starting a war.

 

What am I missing?

 

 

 

No, not correct. It means zero conflict in the subject's sphere of influence.

 

Peace is a word not difficult to define. I'm surprised we're having such trouble here.

[BigRedBuster]

So, during the Roman influence, there were absolutely no conflicts between people at all.

[Husker_x]

There is a point of historical confusion here, because technically the pax Romana was not a total peace, either. It's said to have begun with Augustus, roughly 30 CE. Except in 70 CE you have the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. The city was besieged and razed to the ground not a century into this pax.

[knapplc]

Not to mention various wars against the Britons, Persians, Dacians, etc. The pax Romana was rife with conflict, actually. But that was coming out later in the conversation, Husker_x, when it was pretty conclusively proven that the history of the pax Romana was utterly unknown in this thread (not to mention that of the so-called "pax Mongolica").

 

The point was that this "pax Americana" is as fabricated as the pax Romana, and completely misunderstood for the purposes of this discussion. Further, it's clear that the "source" in the OP is wielding said "pax Americana" as a bludgeon against a political foe he's ideologically opposed to, and that the whole notion is a farce.

[BigRedBuster]

Not to mention various wars against the Britons, Persians, Dacians, etc. The pax Romana was rife with conflict, actually. But that was coming out later in the conversation, Husker_x, when it was pretty conclusively proven that the history of the pax Romana was utterly unknown in this thread (not to mention that of the so-called "pax Mongolica").

 

The point was that this "pax Americana" is as fabricated as the pax Romana, and completely misunderstood for the purposes of this discussion. Further, it's clear that the "source" in the OP is wielding said "pax Americana" as a bludgeon against a political foe he's ideologically opposed to, and that the whole notion is a farce.

But, yet, you said...

 

Unlike Rome, America hasn't forged even 20 years of peace throughout their sphere of influence (which is global).

 

Now, if you want to say that Pax-Americana is a farce because we have not had perfect peace and Pax-Romana is a farce because they didn't have perfect peace, then I guess we have nothing to argue.

[knapplc]

So you agree that the premise in the OP is absurd, and that blaming anyone for the failure of this thing which never existed is equally absurd. Correct?

[Husker_x]

Not to mention various wars against the Britons, Persians, Dacians, etc. The pax Romana was rife with conflict, actually. But that was coming out later in the conversation, Husker_x, when it was pretty conclusively proven that the history of the pax Romana was utterly unknown in this thread (not to mention that of the so-called "pax Mongolica").

 

The point was that this "pax Americana" is as fabricated as the pax Romana, and completely misunderstood for the purposes of this discussion. Further, it's clear that the "source" in the OP is wielding said "pax Americana" as a bludgeon against a political foe he's ideologically opposed to, and that the whole notion is a farce.

 

Agreed on all points. As soon as I saw this pax Americana term, I was bewildered, for basically the same reason as I always have been by the pax Romana. It just doesn't stack up in any literal way, and no one who's doing a real deep reading of historical events could lay it at the feet of Obama. Obama inherited two wars from his predecessor. The Iraq war was supposed to cost a few billion dollars and last a few months. It ended up being one of the longest in our history. Obama gets the credit for ending it. Similarly, Afghanistan looks to me like a war with no victory scenario. Obama gets the credit for getting us out of it. Obama also gets the credit for turning our massive occupation force into a more judicious, flexible, and targeted counter-terrorism outfit. I've been pretty clear on this point. Conservatives might as well find another issue; their squawking about foreign policy and use of military force is swiping the card with nothing in the account.