The Pax Americana is Dead

[BigRedBuster]

Yeah....

 

Those aren't controversial.

[TGHusker]

I'd like to give a summary of original post to clear up some things: Has an absolute pax Americana existed - of course not - no 100% peace. I never said there was. The point of my OP is to discuss the overall role of American in trying to maintain world peace and stopping aggression by dictators and communism & now Islamic terror. The point about Obama is that under his presidency, we are not as aggressive in that 'police' role as we were in the past. The overall purpose of the thread is to discuss - the police roll of America in the world - what the op ed piece labeled as Pax Americana . I could have been more clear. This was not meant to be an attack on Obama and I thought I left it with the Pax Amer being the emphasis.

 

1. The 1st definition of Pax Amercana talks about 'relative peace' based on American military/economic might. It does not speak of nor does the Op Ed link talk of absolute peace. That cannot occur unless American has absolute control or was absolutely benevolent (why wage war if America gives other countries everything they need). So the thread was meant to be a discussion more on the 'world police' role of the USA - thus the implied Pax Amer. I don't believe any one envisions the USA as the absolute world dictator in the Roman style - which would be contrary to the concepts of democracy which we hope other nations would take to voluntarily (perhaps part of the reason GWB overstepped in Iraq). So, we'd have to take the Pax Amer definition not as 100% peace but 'relative peace' through American police efforts.

2. The OP thread questions were aimed to discuss if Pax Amer was good for the world - should it be replaced by something different (instead of the USA being the world police - having regional structures in place so that the USA could withdraw securely to a more realistic position. )

3. The thread questions addresses the actions of the current and past president - Has Obama (right or wrongly) withdrawn as a reaction to GWB's overstepping "cowboy' foreign policy. (As I stated, I think GWB overstepped and Obama has withdrawn too far)

4. The last thread ? addresses the possible future president and her relationship to the current president.

 

For the record: I think I would support Obama's actions more than what I think McCain would have done. McCain would have been a neo-con's dream and by his own words would have had us in a dozen more fights by now. I think Romney would have been more temperate than McCain but acted more decisively than Obama - but that is speculation as we haven't seen Romney in real action. (Disclosure - Romney was not my 1st choice for the rep nomination).

 

Also for the record: I would like to see America fall back to a more realistic position in the world. If we need forces in Europe for a deterrent - move them to the east coast of the USA and build up the economy of our own states - with modern technology and weapons, we can quickly respond to any real threat to Europe from our east coast. The same is true in the Pacific. Overall we should be able to reduce the defense budget while maintaining peace through strength. But strength also comes via building strong relationships wt partners around the world and having structures in place for their own regional defense.

Also, globalization can work to our advantage here. Building strong economic ties makes countries interdependent and more likely to work out differences instead of warring out differences. Unfortunately, Islamic terrorism and the nations that hold to radical Islam are of a totally different mindset.

[BigRedBuster]

LINK

 

I guess the DNC doesn't like someone talking about not being involved in so many military conflicts.

 

I find myself liking someone who can make both parties nervous.

[carlfense]

LINK

 

I guess the DNC doesn't like someone talking about not being involved in so many military conflicts.

 

I find myself liking someone who can make both parties nervous.

The DNC's statement is BS. Complete and utter BS. That's the sort of political opportunism that drives me crazy. Paul is saying largely the same thing that the POTUS is saying but the DNC wants to fan the flames of his base against him.

 

My read on it is that they must see him as a real threat. While I agree with a lot of Paul's foreign policy I'd bet that he's going to become more and more hawkish to try to make it through the primary. We'll see . . . maybe he won't disappoint.

[BigRedBuster]

 

LINK

 

I guess the DNC doesn't like someone talking about not being involved in so many military conflicts.

 

I find myself liking someone who can make both parties nervous.

The DNC's statement is BS. Complete and utter BS. That's the sort of political opportunism that drives me crazy. Paul is saying largely the same thing that the POTUS is saying but the DNC wants to fan the flames of his base against him.

 

My read on it is that they must see him as a real threat. While I agree with a lot of Paul's foreign policy I'd bet that he's going to become more and more hawkish to try to make it through the primary. We'll see . . . maybe he won't disappoint.

 

It's a typical example of a party talking and not caring what they say as long as it paints the other party's candidate in a bad light.

[carlfense]

 

 

LINK

 

I guess the DNC doesn't like someone talking about not being involved in so many military conflicts.

 

I find myself liking someone who can make both parties nervous.

The DNC's statement is BS. Complete and utter BS. That's the sort of political opportunism that drives me crazy. Paul is saying largely the same thing that the POTUS is saying but the DNC wants to fan the flames of his base against him.

 

My read on it is that they must see him as a real threat. While I agree with a lot of Paul's foreign policy I'd bet that he's going to become more and more hawkish to try to make it through the primary. We'll see . . . maybe he won't disappoint.

 

It's a typical example of a party talking and not caring what they say as long as it paints the other party's candidate in a bad light.

 

Yep.

[tschu]

I don't get that response at all. I don't get Rand's comments, and I don't get the response. Politics is stupid a lot of the time

[BigRedBuster]

I don't get that response at all. I don't get Rand's comments, and I don't get the response. Politics is stupid a lot of the time

The sad thing is, I fully understand the response and it has nothing to do with what is the best thing for America. It's purely party politics.

[TGHusker]

LINK

 

I guess the DNC doesn't like someone talking about not being involved in so many military conflicts.

 

I find myself liking someone who can make both parties nervous.

Good article and Good final statement:

Quote:

There are a few things worth noting here. The first is the ferocity with which the DNC responded to an attack that was, in truth, aimed more at Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama,. The second is the degree to which a Rand Paul-Hillary Clinton race would scramble the politics of national security, with Democrats running against Paul in much the way Bush ran against Kerry. And the third is that it's still the case in foreign policy, the real divide isn't left vs. right, but interventionists vs. non-interventionists.

 

and this quote from Rand (basically confirming that the devil we know is better than the one we don't know):

"What they were advocating for then — striking down Assad's regime — would have made our current situation even worse, as it would have eliminated the only regional counterweight to the ISIS threat," Paul writes

2nd quote

It also includes a sharp hit on Hillary Clinton. "We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn't get her way and the Obama administration did not bring about regime change in Syria," Paul writes. "That new regime might well be ISIS."

 

I might add not just Hillary and Obama, but also McCain, Lindsey Graham etc

 

 

Carl, in response to your statement in your post: I too have thought that Rand may have to be more hawkish to make it through the primaries but I'm beginning to think otherwise. Rand has been reaching out more to moderates of late - trying to broaden his appeal. I think Cruz will claim the 'hawk' vote but will be considered too far right for most. I see Rand positioning himself between Jeb Bush/Perry/Chrispy Cream and Cruz. But as the article says the real battle is between interventionists vs. non-interventionists I think Rand will put a stake in the ground and let that differentiate him from the others - thus gaining the younger voters and the anti-GWB, anti neo-con crowd (both repub and Dem). Most if not all of the other well known candidates will be interventionists - including Cruz.

 

Me: There is a lot that I like about Rand Paul. I personally would like to see the USA not having to intervene in all places at all times at the call of all freedom loving countries. Perhaps our next president can build real coalitions that will allow the US to stand down more and allow the burden to shift to others.

 

Old Henry Kissinger weights in on the topic

http://online.wsj.com/articles/henry-kissinger-on-the-assembly-of-a-new-world-order-1409328075?tesla=y

 

Quote:

To play a responsible role in the evolution of a 21st-century world order, the U.S. must be prepared to answer a number of questions for itself: What do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary alone? What do we seek to achieve, even if not supported by any multilateral effort? What do we seek to achieve, or prevent, only if supported by an alliance? What should we not engage in, even if urged on by a multilateral group or an alliance? What is the nature of the values that we seek to advance? And how much does the application of these values depend on circumstance?

For the U.S., this will require thinking on two seemingly contradictory levels. The celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with recognition of the reality of other regions' histories, cultures and views of their security. Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course. But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy.

[carlfense]

Carl, in response to your statement in your post: I too have thought that Rand may have to be more hawkish to make it through the primaries but I'm beginning to think otherwise. Rand has been reaching out more to moderates of late - trying to broaden his appeal. I think Cruz will claim the 'hawk' vote but will be considered too far right for most. I see Rand positioning himself between Jeb Bush/Perry/Chrispy Cream and Cruz. But as the article says the real battle is between interventionists vs. non-interventionists I think Rand will put a stake in the ground and let that differentiate him from the others - thus gaining the younger voters and the anti-GWB, anti neo-con crowd (both repub and Dem). Most if not all of the other well known candidates will be interventionists - including Cruz.

This would arguably work in the general . . . but moderation doesn't mix well with the GOP primary electorate.

[carlfense]

 

Rand Paul has gained popularity within the party pretty much completely because of his more isolationist leanings.

Which is why it will be particularly depressing to watch him walk those back over the next two years.

 

Well, that didn't take long.

 

Speaking to a ballroom later, some of the loudest applause for Paul came when he quipped: "If the president has no strategy, maybe it's time for a new president."

 

In an emailed comment, however, Paul elaborated by saying: "If I were President, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/perry-criticizes-obama-no-strategy-syria

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Rand Paul has gained popularity within the party pretty much completely because of his more isolationist leanings.

Which is why it will be particularly depressing to watch him walk those back over the next two years.

 

Well, that didn't take long.

 

Speaking to a ballroom later, some of the loudest applause for Paul came when he quipped: "If the president has no strategy, maybe it's time for a new president."

 

In an emailed comment, however, Paul elaborated by saying: "If I were President, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/perry-criticizes-obama-no-strategy-syria

 

 

So, to be clear, we have no candidate now that is against getting involved here militarily.

[carlfense]

 

 

 

Rand Paul has gained popularity within the party pretty much completely because of his more isolationist leanings.

Which is why it will be particularly depressing to watch him walk those back over the next two years.

 

Well, that didn't take long.

 

Speaking to a ballroom later, some of the loudest applause for Paul came when he quipped: "If the president has no strategy, maybe it's time for a new president."

 

In an emailed comment, however, Paul elaborated by saying: "If I were President, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/perry-criticizes-obama-no-strategy-syria

 

 

So, to be clear, we have no candidate now that is against getting involved here militarily.

 

Doesn't look like it.

 

And we have one former candidate (who is still regarded as knowledgeable regarding foreign policy) who at least arguably wanted to arm the ISIS militants.

 

Craziness. Simply craziness. Why does everyone act like the US is the country that has to fix this? Where are the EU countries? Where are the local Arabic countries? (Other than the fact that we are responsible for the current state of Iraq of course.)

[BigRedBuster]

Craziness.

 

ISIS is doing this to draw us into the fight. That is the only reason they are doing this. Our government is falling for it hook line and sinker.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

Carpet bomb, no ground troops.