It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pax Americana

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 07:46 AM
link   
America grows through conquest.
A war every 20 years give or take, and from 13 to 50 states in 200 years. Thats an average of a state every 5 years. America has grown through shrewd purchases like manhattan, and the louisiana purchase to out right conquest such as the Navaho and Cherokee nations.

Do not make the mistake of thinking the Native American Nations were either simple, or tribes. They were as thier names imply full Nations states though thier flaw was identification of the nation as a people as opposed to physical borders which could be fortified and patrolled.

Birthed in the merican revolution, fostered by the second ammendment, the writings of the founding fathers, and the innumerable wars, conflicts, skirmishes, battles, cold wars, and incidents in which america has sent men to kill the people we don't like. For much of our history we have hated brown men for some reason I can't quite figure out, but none the less we are a warlike nation. War is what america does.

To deny this basc tenet of American culture is to weaken the very foundation of this nation.

War is what we do.
Instead of apologising for it, we should demand that other nations be as tolerant of our culture as they want us to be of thiers. Maybe we should sue france for harrasment due to our alternative foreign policy styles.
Either way this is who we are, and that is what we do, we aint gonna change so lets stop the navel gazing self loathing and accept ourselves for who we are.
Lets get to doing what we do best.
Pax Americana




posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 10:58 AM
link   
while i agree it's obvious (is it?
_) that in principle every nation should want to further their cause, i only have one thing to say to you; Pareto would not be pleased.

EDIT: i like editing. (the italic on Paleto looked rubbish)


[edit on 3/12/04 by BLUELol]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Every nation on Earth has grown through war or some other sort of Conflict. It is not something that is unique to America.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 06:14 PM
link   
england and france? theyve fought wars with each other alone for more than 200 years. war isnt special to us, its everywhere. besides, i dont think we should embrace a culture of violence. its a dumb thing to do, really, proclaim that what you are about is hatred and killing.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Sue France for harrassment?


So is this the fate that awaits any nation that dares disagree with the mighty United States?

And is this characterization of the U.S. as a war nation supposed to cow other countries into submission? "Respect us, don't judge us, don't hold us accountable, OR ELSE!"



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
For much of our history we have hated brown men for some reason I can't quite figure out.


Racism? How hard is it to figure out? What else could "Hating brown men" be? At least you admit it.




War is what we do.


But not something you do.



Lets get to doing what we do best.
Pax Americana


I can hear every single able bodied Jihadi cry out in unison "Bring it on" as you spout this crap. You and them, fanatical extremist religious zealots alike...scare the sh*t out of me. Enough to take notice and oppose your doctrines of hate.

[edit on 4-12-2004 by cargo]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Oh man was this thread ever made for me! Thanks mwm1331! LOL

There is a great article by Col. Ralph Peters (ret.) about Pax Americana

The American Mission:
carlisle-www.army.mil...

I also recommmend his essay from 1999:
Our New Old Enemies:
carlisle-www.army.mil...



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   
You say your nation is built on war and conquest, yet the moment borders are not given unblinking respect, national sovereignty is infringed, your nation is the first to act (Iraq and Kuwait
)IMHO borders are not permanent, and the maintenance of the status quo benefits only those that are in power; the US, and, to a lesser extent, its Western satelite states.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Volksgeist
You say your nation is built on war and conquest, yet the moment borders are not given unblinking respect, national sovereignty is infringed, your nation is the first to act (Iraq and Kuwait
)IMHO borders are not permanent, and the maintenance of the status quo benefits only those that are in power; the US, and, to a lesser extent, its Western satelite states.


Wow...America has never done well when the Status Quo is kept. We have always excelled when there is disorder and peril. You did not read the essays I linked to did ya.
Well here is one for ya called:

Stability, America's Enemy:
carlisle-www.army.mil...

Gee you do not think I like Col. Ralph Peters...do ya?



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Imperium Americana


Wow...America has never done well when the Status Quo is kept. We have always excelled when there is disorder and peril.


You don't seem capable of distinguishing the 19th, and 20th centuries from the 21st century. America is sole superpower now. Or haven't you noticed
The US is now an established empire, and as such has a stake in maintaining the status quo



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 07:07 AM
link   
The fall of rome was evident the day they built hadrians wall. Prioir to that rome had not ever seen the need for a wall because thier borders were always expnading. The situation with mexico is no different. It will become the 51 state and they will beg to be it.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Volksgeist

Originally posted by Imperium Americana


Wow...America has never done well when the Status Quo is kept. We have always excelled when there is disorder and peril.


You don't seem capable of distinguishing the 19th, and 20th centuries from the 21st century. America is sole superpower now. Or haven't you noticed
The US is now an established empire, and as such has a stake in maintaining the status quo


No, actually I am quite capable of differentiating between the 19th, 20th and the 21st centuries, Thank You. Your comment proves my point. You disregard the 19 and 20th centuries, but what lead us to the 21st???????? It is precisely because of the instability in the 17th-20th century, that America is the lone superpower. Had the there been no instability there would have been no weakening of the European powers.

I find it funny when people throw around the word "Empire". What kind of empire? A Hegemonic Empire, a Domineering Empire, a hydraulic empire or something entirely new. I say America is in fact not an empire but a democratic-hegemony.

Today, what many consider to be the "American Empire" does not fit historical definitions of imperialism and colonialism, but the United States influence takes on different and discrete forms. America's military presence by itself is breathtaking and influential. According to researchers [1] (www.inthenationalinterest.com...), around the world, the United States maintains 750 military bases or installations staffed by American military personnel in roughly 130 countries. The economic influence of American corporations is also substantial which strongly contributes to the growing Americanization of many countries. It has been suggested that America has achieved the status of world hegemon; defined as a State existing as a superpower in a unipolar geopolitical environment whence it can dictate international law. Put another way, the United States' power is such that it can act unilaterally without fear of reprisal due to the prevalence of its military forces in any relevant theater of operations.

The term "American Empire" is today often mostly used as derogatory expression to personify America's military and cultural presence in nations around the world.
(1)

I think were your opinion is a bit "off base" is that you are assuming that instability must be systemic. What I am saying is that micro-instability is a benefit. While there are times in which America has drawn strength through a macro-instability (i.e. WWI & II), these are to be understood as unique situations and should not be the basis of geo-political strategy. The Cold War was a situation in which a series of semi-controlled micro-instabilities created an enduring flux. The paradox is that: only through instability can America insure that she retains her hegemony.


(1):en.wikipedia.org...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join