Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Pax Americana: Empire is Inevitable

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
America is for all intents and purposes an empire. It may be a hegemony rather than outright owning its client states, but it still issues the orders and makes the rules. The US has an oligarchy instead of a single emperor, but it is every bit as much an empire as those of Spain or Great Britain were in their turn.

Basically, if your nation is of a certain size and/or wealth, you are faced with two choices: you can either give up your independence, and attach yourself as a client state to some empire (as Switzerland has done), or else you can become that empire yourself. The only way to keep full independence is to be the empire.

The US would not have stayed independent if it had chosen the neutrality route, and wouldn't last long today if it voluntarily disarmed.

Every hegemonic leader is hated because it is the paternalistic defender of its colleague states. in the 17th-19th centuries, Britain was vilified precisely because it was the world's superpower. Other European states complained about British colonialism, chiefly because it interfered with their own plans for global domination. And before Britain came to the fore, it worked tirelessly to hire pirates and privateers, spies and thieves to wear down the Spanish empire.

So, America HAD to become an empire, or else cease to exist. And all the 'civilized' states hate it, and will until it falter, and chaos ensues. Then, like the UK was, the US will be blamed for the very chaos everyone had been dreaming of, until a successor empire emerges....




posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I would like to agree with this, but I really can't. The United States could have--would have--become a major player in international politics due to its sheer size and natural resources, but it did not HAVE to become an empire or a hegemonic force on the world.

Had the United States stayed true to its founding principles and stayed the course that our founding fathers outlined three centuries ago, we could have formed a peaceful "Eden" so to speak of technological, social, cultural and political stability and advancement. Had we stayed a neutral "empire" simply acting as a guiding force and a safe-haven for those looking to succeed, we could have avoided the nasty tag of being an empire like that of the British or Spanish or Portuguese or Russians.

Instead, we sold out. We became a nation devoted to Capitalistic, Mercantilist ideals.

You call it "Pax Americana" but that is not what this is. During Pax Romana or Pax Mongolica, they dominated their empires with brutal efficiency and outright force. Instead, the United States fights proxy wars and does little to ensure peace anywhere outside of its Continental borders.

We did not have to follow this path. We chose it.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by isthisreallife
 


I respect your opinion, even if I don't share it.

To say we chose it implies there was some realistic alternative.

If we had not picked up the pieces of Spain's failing empire like it was a rummage sale, someone else would have. Some other power would have taken the Philippines, Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc. England might have taken control of the Caribbean. Or Mexico. Or a united Bolivar-esque South American Empire.

The only reason no empire took the Caribbean archipelago is because the American Empire kept them out---with the "Monroe Doctrine." Without America enforcing that doctrine, the Europeans would have re-colonized central America and the islands, cutting America out of the fruit and sugar trade, as well as access to the Amazon and the mines of South America.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
I think you need to learn some history, here. The Caribbean islands to this day are Spanish, French, DUTCH, and British, hearkening back to the days of empires. The worst islands are the .............US Virgin Islands.

That said, yes, the US is an empire. It is THE empire now.

You will be assimilated. Resistance is useless.

That's what they all said.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Washington District of Columbia is not The United States of America. Washington DC is an alien city-state that rules America, and much of the rest of the world, in the way that Rome ruled the Roman Empire, the Vatican rules the Catholic Empire and the City of London Corporation ruled the British Empire.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by tovenar
 


I'm confused by your title. You do realize Pax means peace, right? A period of history marked by no major wars. Ever since the US was brought out of it's isolationist phase, we've basically been all up everyone's business ever since, under the guise of protecting our "foreign interests"...


I don't think we'll ever be able to use Pax and America in the same sentance for a LONG time....



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
I think I agree with the OP.

Coming into WWII, the United States was almost militantly isolationist in many ways with respect to global politics outside a few designated areas like Cuba and the Philippines, lacked the military infrastructure to maintain a global presence, as well as the government agencies that also required.

Only after Roosevelt, the New Deal, and then Truman and the Soviet actions following World War II does the United States take on a more permanent military standing. The argument could be made with some merit that it was the threat of Soviet hegemony that forced the United States to become something else, an empire some might say, to stand in opposition.

Had it not done so and simply withdrawn across the Atlantic, the best evidence suggests Germany would have ended up under a fully Stalinist regime with France falling lockstep into their orbit. It's also likely Korea would have gone fully communist as well.

Whether the United States would have been better served as an isolationist power protected by their natural sea boundaries in such a scenario is interesting to consider, but it was both at the request of nations that felt that threat, and with legitimate fear of the possibility of global hegemony accruing to the Soviet Union that the American imperial state has been formed.

And now that it exists, the logic of empire sadly applies. Every empire has been reviled upon its ascension and its destruction, but history suggests that it is better to hold on, because the many resentments caused by the actions of the empire are paid back upon its people. When the fall happens, it won't be pretty.

But maybe it won't. Maybe it will evolve into something else, though it is interesting to see NATO change itself from a defensive alliance to a hegemonic league, and to see its expansion being driven by unspoken concerns. My own opinion is that we're seeing the prelude to the endgame of the energy wars as resources are being taken off the board by all sides.

Empires don't bring peace though. They bring savage little wars that while nasty, prevent the sort of larger wars where powers of relatively equal size try to destroy the crap out of one another because they think they can win total victory.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Do you know what is an Empire?

If the US is Empire...what is its Step-Fathers name?

don't just go using words you don't even know the meaning of.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by starsyren
reply to post by tovenar
 


I'm confused by your title. You do realize Pax means peace, right? A period of history marked by no major wars. Ever since the US was brought out of it's isolationist phase, we've basically been all up everyone's business ever since, under the guise of protecting our "foreign interests"...


I don't think we'll ever be able to use Pax and America in the same sentance for a LONG time....


I can say Pax Americana in the same sense that Pax Romana was originally used. For it's client states within the fold, they are entirely safe.

How many wars has Mexico endured in the past hundred years? what about Portugal? Yes, there have been wars on fringes of America's reach, and one serious threat to very existence of America; but for most of the states that are "friends or allies" of the US, this has been one of the most peaceful periods in their history.

What country in western Europe has seriously had its regime threatened since world war two? Yes, they have been afraid of a third world war, but that fear is really a code for being afraid that the US hegemony would falter, not that the Soviets would invade Denmark or Italy without repercussions.

During the Roman peace, the doors to the temple of Janus, which were only closed during times of peace, remained open for over 100 years continuously. So the Pax referred to interior protection for Rome's clients, and not wars of empire per say. Rome was a state of war for others, but peace for its subjects.

Or compare it to the Pax Britannica. Like Britain, America has guaranteed the peace of the seas for commerce for many years now. There are no regions of the high seas where ships refuse to go because of the danger of piracy. The threats from Somali and Chinese pirates lasted less than a decade. America actually guarantees the freedom of the seas far more effectively that Great Britain ever did.

So yes, Pax Americana applies.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
Do you know what is an Empire?

If the US is Empire...what is its Step-Fathers name?

don't just go using words you don't even know the meaning of.


I do know what empire is. It's the Anglicization of the Latin imperium or power. It refers to an extensive territory where one power claims the monopoly on the use of force. To be a real empire, the territory is composed of subsidiary states which are more or less autonomous, but must nevertheless yield to the directives of the imperial power.

Germany is considered a sovereign state. Yet it has American military bases on its soil. No other nation has bases in Germany, and Germany has bases no where else.

You don't have to have an Emperor to be an imperium. You just need to exert final authority over other sovereign states. American certainly has that.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by tovenar
 


Sweet, I didn't know we were the boss of Germany. Germany is the boss of Europe, so we are the boss of Europe.

You should build a Map so we can all see all of the people that are subject to us.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by tovenar
 


Sweet, I didn't know we were the boss of Germany. Germany is the boss of Europe, so we are the boss of Europe.


The German Grundgesetz, their constitution, was erected by the Allies at the behest of the United States. Until 1985, English was a compulsory subject in German schools. Sure, that initial overt control has been replaced with what looks like autonomy.

How many German soldiers are stationed in the US? How many airbases do they maintain here? Do we buy our oil denominated in Euros? Do we import corn and wheat from Germany? How much German debt do we hold?

Has Germany invaded anyplace over American objections? Have they led a multinational "coalition of the willing" that we contributed troops toward?

All those transactions go one way. But it just shows how "free" America is, right?
edit on 15-6-2012 by tovenar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by tovenar
 


but we're the boss, right?

that's all that's important to me.

i didn't like you label...Empire. i associate it not with Rome or Europe, but with Egypt, where I assume the concept actually emerged.

you say empire and I immediately think of murdered fathers and single mothers, raising their sons with the help of a priest. but its good to find out that's not what an empire is at all.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Not necessarily. America could have become a regional super power and kept to itself. Instead of conquering other nations via proxy or using the media to support their direct intervention in a nation they could have sat back with their million man army and just watched their borders. The US has enough resources to keep it going for decades and has the land to feed its own population. If the US had made alliances or trade agreements it could have reached a level of wealth only dreamed of today. It could have simply sat back on its vast reserves of men and women and simply used its economic strength to build stable nations in Africa and the Middle East. But instead it decided to follow in the footsteps of other nations and used its power to destabilize regions and nations for their own benefit.

I don't like the US' power plays, but neither do I like Russia and China's. Why not become a neutral nation? Ireland has been neutral since 1922 and we haven't been 'conquered' by any one since. We didn't 'sell out' to become the client of an empire until recently (The EU) and even then if you got the right sort of patriotism and nationalistic pride we had developed during the State founding we would march on the Dail and across Europe if the need arose.
Ireland is too laid back but there is a growing back bone and it won't be long until a political coup is staged (Sinn Fein most likely).

So, the US does not and did not need to become an Empire. It could have simply guarded its own borders and used its overwhelming economic power to floor any nation that attacked it.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I'd have to agree with you OP, at least on some things.

The only reason the US is so far reaching, and powerful today is because of it's actions that's caused it to be hated. The US has gone around the world and strong-armed other nations into making sure the US is given every possible chance to grow and succeed.

I'm not saying it's right, that's just how it is. Obviously if you rule the world, your going to benefit from it. It's something every single nation with the power to do so, has TRIED to do, or HAS done throughout history.

But many people seem to forget history quickly, whether purposefully or by accident. They are under the false assumption that America is doing something new, or something different. That the world was a peaceful prosperous place before big bad America came along and screwed everything up for everyone. When in fact, the world has been at war with itself, with powerful nations warring against, taking advantage of, and conquering other nations since time began.

People seem to have forgotten a time when Arabs were trying to conquer Europe, or European empires were trying to conquer other European empires and the whole world. Or when China was trying to expand its borders and invade its neighbors, or Japan was trying to subjugate China.

No, America isn't doing anything new. It's not doing anything different. In my opinion it's less destructive then many, if not all, of the previous empires hell bent on world domination. I can't think of America ever committing genocide. Yes, there have been plenty of cases where America has killed a lot of people, but nothing compared to what we see when we look at history.

Like I said, I'm not saying everything America has done is morally RIGHT. But it's business as usual for us humans on planet earth. America didn't write the handbook on empire or war, it's simply a small chapter at the end of it. People hate America because it's just the latest in a long line of warring empires, go 100 years into the future, or 100 years into the past and America probably wouldn't/wont be at the forefront of anybodies mind.

In the future, the possibility is there that everyone on this planet will hate China for being the world's bully. There already making some advances in that area based on how they are treating some of their "Friends" All those that think they would be better of with a China dominated world, well, I think you'll be sadly mistaken. Even living in China right now doesn't afford you some of the same rights and quality of life aspects that belong to some of the people's being "oppressed" by America.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trajan
could have simply sat back on its vast reserves of men and women and simply used its economic strength to build stable nations in Africa and the Middle East. But instead it decided to follow in the footsteps of other nations and used its power to destabilize regions and nations for their own benefit


That's the language of empire, right there. "nation building = destabilizing nations and groups you don't approve of.



I don't like the US' power plays, but neither do I like Russia and China's. Why not become a neutral nation? Ireland has been neutral since 1922 and we haven't been 'conquered' by any one since. We didn't 'sell out' to become the client of an empire until recently (The EU) and even then if you got the right sort of patriotism and nationalistic pride we had developed during the State founding we would march on the Dail and across Europe if the need arose.


With out US power plays, the world would have witnessed a lot more from both China and Russia. Ireland hasn't been conquered because it is already a captive market, and serves the current power structure the way it is.



So, the US does not and did not need to become an Empire. It could have simply guarded its own borders and used its overwhelming economic power to floor any nation that attacked it.


The only reason it has those vast resources are because it did in fact become an empire. California, Texas, Hawaii, all of them and much more were wrested from Spain in one form or another. Which is my point in the first place, without it's imperial ambitions,there wouldn't even BE a USA---someone else would have moved in and set up shop.






top topics



 
2

log in

join