[Mastrap]

Think about it. The current situation is not all that dissimilar to one faced by the Romans and the Greek, some 2500 years ago. The Greek were the Europeans of their time, an ancient culture that had once ruled the known world. They created great art, they build wonderful cities, their scientists explored the universe. They were once a great military power, ruling great parts of the eastern Mediterranean, trading as far as India and Norway.

The the Romans arrived on the scene. Youthful if slightly arrogant, full of energy and determined to impress their mark onto a waiting world. Their relationship with the Greek was probably not dissimilar to the current US ? EU scenario. Initially the Greek looked upon the Romans as slightly uncouth barbarians who needed guidance and help to achieve true culture and enlightenment.
The Romans tended to look upon the Greek with slightly puzzled affection, visiting their temples, learning about and deeply admiring their history while generally completely ignoring their opinions when it came to matters of state and conquest. So while there were voices in Greece bemoaning the absence of true culture in Rome, the Romans got on with it and build an empire that dwarfed anything the Greeks had ever achieved. Greece managed to keep a nominal independence, still a centre of learning and culture but politically without real power.

The Romans went on to establish the 'Pax Romana', the 'Peace of Rome'. Meaning they established law in their conquered lands, generally tended to behave fairly and rule with a light hand. Local religions were not only tolerated but encouraged, trade was free of taxes and hindrance. A working justice system was established with the same law being spoken in the North of England to the deserts of Egypt.

So, what if the US is building an empire? What if the coming war is about building a power base in the middle east. Is a 'Pax Americana' really such a bad thing?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Think about it. The current situation is not all that dissimilar to one faced by the Romans and the Greek, some 2500 years ago.

Why, how Harold Macmillanish of you to say so!

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Think about it. The current situation is not all that dissimilar to one faced by the Romans and the Greek, some 2500 years ago. The Greek were the Europeans of their time, an ancient culture that had once ruled the known world. They created great art, they build wonderful cities, their scientists explored the universe. They were once a great military power, ruling great parts of the eastern Mediterranean, trading as far as India and Norway.

The the Romans arrived on the scene. Youthful if slightly arrogant, full of energy and determined to impress their mark onto a waiting world. Their relationship with the Greek was probably not dissimilar to the current US ? EU scenario. Initially the Greek looked upon the Romans as slightly uncouth barbarians who needed guidance and help to achieve true culture and enlightenment.
The Romans tended to look upon the Greek with slightly puzzled affection, visiting their temples, learning about and deeply admiring their history while generally completely ignoring their opinions when it came to matters of state and conquest. So while there were voices in Greece bemoaning the absence of true culture in Rome, the Romans got on with it and build an empire that dwarfed anything the Greeks had ever achieved. Greece managed to keep a nominal independence, still a centre of learning and culture but politically without real power.

The Romans went on to establish the 'Pax Romana', the 'Peace of Rome'. Meaning they established law in their conquered lands, generally tended to behave fairly and rule with a light hand. Local religions were not only tolerated but encouraged, trade was free of taxes and hindrance. A working justice system was established with the same law being spoken in the North of England to the deserts of Egypt.

So, what if the US is building an empire? What if the coming war is about building a power base in the middle east. Is a 'Pax Americana' really such a bad thing?

The Roman Empire eventually fell apart ... So did British Colonialism, etc. Does this answer your question?

Like the Romans, the British were dependent on the cheap labor and resources from their colonies. Would such a system comply with human rights?

[kovacs]

Yeah why not ? So all earthlings can enjoy the wonders of healthy Burger King hamburgers, Coca-cola, Diet Pepsi and Mountain Dew, ugly and boring Chevrolets, watching Jerry Springer and Judge Judy disrupted by commercials every ten minutes, watching talkshows and movies that are censored with stupid beeps every few words, listening to ten different radio staions with nothing but catholic bullshit ...

Euhm...no thanks

[D'Espice]

An American Empire? God help us that would be the end of the world as we know it

[Face Ache]

So we should repeat history?

Can't we try something new for a change?

[gadster]

As nice as that sounds to a progressive Westerner, I think it is a bad idea. Who likes to be dictated to?

The middle east, and other developing regions, will come to their own conclusions, in their own good time.

The best way to promote your values is to lead by example. Embrace dissent, don't crush it.

If unfettered capitalism is such a good idea, people around the world will desire it, and demand it. No military required. Let the results speak for themselves.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Why, how Harold Macmillanish of you to say so!

You're giving me too much credit - I've got no idea what you mean by tht comment...

[Sealobo]

it wouldn't be a good or a bad idea.

it would be the worse idea.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
You're giving me too much credit - I've got no idea what you mean by tht comment...

I'm surprised. Harold MacMillan famously coined the "your Rome to our Greece" comparison way back when he was Prime Minister (around 1962). The idea was that the US was the crass, but powerful new power, and that Britain was the worldly, but declining power to which the new power should turn to for advice.

The self-flattery was obvious even then.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by kovacs:
Yeah why not ? So all earthlings can enjoy the wonders of healthy Burger King hamburgers, Coca-cola, Diet Pepsi and Mountain Dew, ugly and boring Chevrolets, watching Jerry Springer and Judge Judy disrupted by commercials every ten minutes, watching talkshows and movies that are censored with stupid beeps every few words, listening to ten different radio staions with nothing but catholic bullshit ...

Euhm...no thanks

Well, now. Is that all America is? That it? Encapsulated for you here by Mssr. Kovacs?
Hm. If that is the case, well, we can only put Belgium in one category: makers of sh1tty froggy beer.
See how this works?

[maxelson]

You know, Mastrap poses a VERY worthwhile question. One worthy of exploration, one worthy of hard debate and this is all there is? A quagmire of shallow little comments? Little digs at America, American culture and people? Responses that don't see past the end of one's nose? I count two or MAYBE three responses that have any thought- one of which has the mere suggestion of exploration.
So. Is that it? Is that all we've got?
So much for crappy American Education and the closing of the American mind. Look what the rest of the word has to offer.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


The self-flattery was obvious even then.

Oh. Wasn't my intention, I promise. The comparison just seems to make some sort of sense.

[Face Ache]

I'll stick by my post.

A new Empire won't work because it's been tried before.

The United Nations was a great idea. Maybe not in practice but perhaps we should work on it instead of trying to discredit it, huh?

[maxelson]

TO be honest, Face, I thought your post had some stuff behind it. It is an interesting thought.
Just playing DA, here-
Right. It is true. It has been tried before, and to varying degrees of success. And with positive and negative implications in history.

Lets boil it down to something pretty simple for a sec. There's the strongest kid in, say, a five kid family. That kid is automatically one of two things: the bully or the peacemaker, neither quality pure.
Proceed.

[Mastrap]

Lets take this even further.

Bush goes to war in Iraq, SH falls. But rather than giving the Iraq back to the Iraquis, it's declared a US colony.

New judicial structures are being build, money is flowing into the country. Every citizen is given a US colonial passport, allowing free movement throughout the US for 12 months.
Dissidents are being freed, a colonial government is being put up for election. The vast majority of the populance votes for a pro-US colonial senat.

Oil that is now freely being pumped in Iraq is being shipped back to the US and Europe, creating jobs and wealth, schools and hospitals are being build. After 5 years the Iraqi population votes overwhelmingly to become a US state. Stability in the middle east ensues.

What's wrong with this picture? Sounds good to me.

[gadster]

Originally posted by maxelson:
You know, Mastrap poses a VERY worthwhile question. One worthy of exploration, one worthy of hard debate and this is all there is? A quagmire of shallow little comments? Little digs at America, American culture and people? Responses that don't see past the end of one's nose? I count two or MAYBE three responses that have any thought- one of which has the mere suggestion of exploration.
So. Is that it? Is that all we've got?
So much for crappy American Education and the closing of the American mind. Look what the rest of the word has to offer.

Well, you ARE the poop checker (who knows why), don't go getting all cranky on us now.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Oh. Wasn't my intention, I promise. The comparison just seems to make some sort of sense.

Well, it does make sense. but I think not in the way you intended. MacMillan made his comparison at a time when Britain was undergoing considerably anxiety over the loss of empire, and more broadly, the loss of international influence. After 1956 and the debacle in Suez, Britain began its withdrawal from the Middle East and Eastern Med. The US took on the responsibility. At the same time, the UK was trying to maintain its clout by obtaining an independent nuclear deterrant. Then the US cancelled the Blue Streak missile, causing SuperMac to fly at top speed to Washington, where he persuaded Kennedy to sell him Polaris.

What Britain, and especially Tory grandees like MacMillan, were desparately trying to avoid was the reality that Britain's economic and political power had been eclipsed. Hence the analogy to Rome and Greece. If the "Roman's" would only defer their judgement to the "Greeks" it wouldn't matter that the Romans were more powerful. The Greeks would still be in charge. Of course, this wasn't quite how things looked from the Roman point of view. They were happy to follow the Greek model, but only when it was already in their interests to do so.

I'm sorry to suggest this, but there is a parallel with current events, and I'm not surprised to see these sentiments reemerge.

[gadster]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, it does make sense. but I think not in the way you intended. MacMillan made his comparison at a time when Britain was undergoing considerably anxiety over the loss of empire, and more broadly, the loss of international influence. After 1956 and the debacle in Sue, Britain began its withdrawal from the Middle East and Eastern Med. The US took on the responsibility. At the same time, the UK was trying to maintain its clout by obtaining an independent nuclear deterrant. Then the US cancelled the Blue Streak missile, causing SuperMac to fly at top speed to Washington, where he persuaded Kennedy to sell him Polaris.

What Britain, and especially Tory grandees like MacMillan, were desparately trying to avoid was the reality that Britain's economic and political power had been eclipsed. Hence the analogy to Rome and Greece. If the "Roman's" would only defer their judgement to the "Greeks" it wouldn't matter that the Romans were more powerful. The Greeks would still be in charge. Of course, this wasn't quite how things looked from the Roman point of view. They were happy to follow the Greek model, but only when it was already in their interests to do so.

I'm sorry to suggest this, but there is a parallel with current events, and I'm not surprised to see these sentiments reemerge.

So how does this analogy fit in with terrorists (freedom fighters�).

[maxelson]

Depends on your perception. In this scenario, is the US doling out freedom or slavery?

[maxelson]

Originally posted by gadster:
Well, you ARE the poop checker (who knows why), don't go getting all cranky on us now.

POOP! WE GOT POOP OVER HERE!!!

[kovacs]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Well, now. Is that all America is? That it? Encapsulated for you here by Mssr. Kovacs?
Hm. If that is the case, well, we can only put Belgium in one category: makers of sh1tty froggy beer.
See how this works?

I like the european diversity ( Belgium has more than 1000 sorts of beer ), you americans could have the same diversity in culture, products, music, food, art, architecture but you choose not to, fine by me.

Just let us enjoy our rich diversity and culture that we have been working on for centuries...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by kovacs:
ugly and boring Chevrolets,

Yeah those Vettes are so ugly

watching Jerry Springer and Judge Judy disrupted by commercials every ten minutes, watching talkshows and movies that are censored with stupid beeps every few words,

So don't watch TV, I don't.

listening to ten different radio staions with nothing but catholic bullshit ...

Euhm...no thanks

Oh come on, 10 different catholic stations? What city is this in?

[Montanan]

Interesting posts, Mastrap.

I guess I'd say, though, that over the next few decades we're most likely to see a gradual decline in the relative global importance of the US. Over the centuries, a variety of nations have enjoyed their "fifteen minutes of fame" on the world stage, and then begun to fade ... Britain in the last century; Spain and the Netherlands before that; the Ottomans; the Poles; and so on. The US is well into its fifteen minutes, and soon it will be someone else's turn ... my guess is that the EU will step up next, followed maybe by China or even India, but who knows.

There's also the definite possibility that global political power will eventually be rendered largely irrelevant by increasing global corporate power. That's a little OT, but I think its a somewhat-valid argument.

[mitchell_pgh]

I have to agree with EVERYONE here... I can't think of a worse thing. The difference between the USA of today and Rome of 2000+ years ago is that the USA isn't trying to conquer lands and impose taxes on other countries... While we may be ridiculed because of our foreign policy, I generally feel that we are quasi-humanitarian when it is in our best interest.

The USA gives BILLIONS in foreign aid (not to mention hundreds of millions in private foreign aid). Unfortunately, the US doesn't do very well in the marketing department. Most people hear and see what our country is about from our movies (rich, power hungry, violent, flag waving aggressors)

There is SO much more to America then Los Angeles, Hollywood, New York and Washington DC!

America is in a tough situation. I call it the damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario. It has come to the point the US is expected to help everyone out with their problems, but leave them alone when things are going well. I don't think our government works that way very well. I see everything that we do as "We scratch your back, you scratch ours..." in that if we help you out, somewhere down the line, we may need that favor returned (not that we expect it, but if the chance arises, you will help us out).

I am constantly ridiculing the US because we took such an isolationist approach to WWII, (especially because of what was happening with Jews) but Europe would have fallen if the US hadn't stepped in.

Unfortunately, the days of ground combat becomes mute when a country gains weapons of mass destruction. That's why I support the war in Iraq. If Bush can show that they are up to something... them I support the war, and would hope that other countries would as well. If not, I say that we should back down and show the world that we are part of the international community. I'm tired of arguing should we or shouldn't we go to war when we really don't have any proof that they are doing anything wrong over there... [wow, where did that come from?]

[Face Ache]

It seems to me that the idea is for the US to corner as much of the globe as it can before China becomes a problem.

And once the Chinese economy ramps up, it WILL become a problem.

[Octo]

If you look at global econimc trends then you will see that the US has already reached their height.

Where is todays largest economic power, China and other areas of Asia. The US as an economic power will be completely gone in about a decade.

Where is todays largest military? The US, but other countries are quickly building up to that level. The military strength of the US will most likely be that thing that remains the longest, probably 4 or 5 decades, but after that. The US will be no more important that any other second rate country.

Think about it, in roughly 30 or 40 years, the leader of China or another super power may be threatening the US with war if they don't stop their weapon research programs and have complete disclosure of their weapons of mass destruction.

[gadster]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yeah those Vaginas are so ugly
[/B]

Really Zimph, can you just post your own thoughts? The Q&A format is tiresome to read and lazy on your behalf. And how about an original thread, or didn't they teach you how to do that at Nazi school?

[maxelson]

Originally posted by kovacs:
I like the european diversity ( Belgium has more than 1000 sorts of beer ), you americans could have the same diversity in culture, products, music, food, art, architecture but you choose not to, fine by me.

Just let us enjoy our rich diversity and culture that we have been working on for centuries...

And your basis for such a shallow and ignorant comment is...? Please thrill me with your acumen. Show us ponderous wealth of knowledge of all things American. I certainly hope it ain't all Burger King and Coke. For that would show you to be a mo- ron.

[DBursey]

Oh! I know! How about a nice, friendly global wahhabist theocracy?

Imagine, all that annoying free speech / free enterprise to be replaced by soothing, vacuous chanting!

... and Atef's Carcass could be the Ayatollah!

Now accepting applications for head executioner. Submit those CV's!

[Montanan]

Originally posted by Octo:
Think about it, in roughly 30 or 40 years, the leader of China or another super power may be threatening the US with war if they don't stop their weapon research programs and have complete disclosure of their weapons of mass destruction.

heh heh ... I kinda hope Dubya is still around when (not if) that happens, so someone can point out the irony of it all to him.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Octo:
Think about it, in roughly 30 or 40 years, the leader of China or another super power may be threatening the US with war if they don't stop their weapon research programs and have complete disclosure of their weapons of mass destruction.

Hehehe. And a Chinese SimeyTheRimey will be pointing out historical precedence.

[Sealobo]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
It seems to me that the idea is for the US to corner as much of the globe as it can before China becomes a problem.

And once the Chinese economy ramps up, it WILL become a problem.

You are right on the money.

Right now US already got the east side of China (Japan). There is nothing much they can do from the north so it's a good idea to go by the West (anywhere in the Middle East). China has its own way to deal with the US, namely the Grand Strategy. (search for "China Grand Strategy" on google and you will see the vision of the modern chinese leaders)

The Chinese economy is ramping up, and it has already becoming a problem, a problem for the US that is. The Sino-Russian partnership is already the biggest force after the US.

I see that as a good thing, balance of power = peace.

[Sealobo]

This book is what i studied in uni... it's a good one. Try it~ (it's free, just click the link)

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1121/

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by gadster:
So how does this analogy fit in with terrorists (freedom fighters�).

It doesn't. No analogy is a 100% fit. My analogy is to the reaction (primarily in Europe) to a perceived decline in relative influence over events and a consequent frustration that bubbles over. That was evident in Europe in the wake of the loss of empire among MacMillan's generation. From my perspective, a similar frustration at not being able to stop events you don't like has a great deal to do with European popular and elite opinion today. I suggest you read Robert Kagan's article, which I posted a few months ago. link. He explained it quite well.

For the same reason that my analogy isn't a 100% fit, any other analogy is also going to lead you to error if you take it too far. The interdependent, free-trading, modern world really can't be compared to ancient empires. But if you are going to make such an analogy, I would suggest (even from your point of view) that the Athenian empire is a better fit. Read your Thucidides to see what I mean.

[kovacs]

Originally posted by maxelson:
And your basis for such a shallow and ignorant comment is...? Please thrill me with your acumen. Show us ponderous wealth of knowledge of all things American. I certainly hope it ain't all Burger King and Coke. For that would show you to be a mo- ron.

It was a B/W statement but instead of calling me names, try to prove me wrong, try to compare culture, food and art....and why are you so offended anyway ? You enjoy living in the US I enjoy living in Europe, lets keep it this way, European and American culture don't mix very well. And please tell me what good would this do to Europe or the US ? None... we will just get a cacophony of different cultures...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by kovacs:
It was a B/W statement but instead of calling me names, try to prove me wrong, try to compare culture, food and art....and why are you so offended anyway ? You enjoy living in the US I enjoy living in Europe, lets keep it this way, European and American culture don't mix very well. And please tell me what good would this do to Europe or the US ? None... we will get a cacophony of different cultures...

Well, I for one like Belgian beer. I just wish it wasn't so expensive over here.

[Montanan]

Well, I like Belgian beer, too ... and Belgian waffles ... and Belgian chocolate ... and Belgian waffles covered with Belgian chocolate ...

:: drools uncontrollably ::

Heck, I even like Brussels sprouts.

[kovacs]

I can also enjoy a good burger from Carl's jr, mmmm, now that what I call a burger...

"And you know what they call a... a... a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Paris?" Pulp Fiction

Let's make a deal you send me a good burger from Carl's jr and I will send you some brussels sprouts covered with belgian chocolat ( it exists

[davesimondotcom]

There is no interest in the United States to become an empire, otherwise it would have happened already.

Think about it - we could have taken over Japan and most of Europe after WWII. It's not like it would take much for the U.S. military to take over Canada and Mexico and probably all of Central/South America.

Who needs to be an empire? Economically, culturally, etc. the world looks to the U.S. already.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by kovacs:
I can also enjoy a good burger from Carl's jr, mmmm, now that what I call a burger...

Well, anything has to be better than a "Big Tom" sold in that local Belgian chain I saw in Brussels. And note: I didn't eat one myself, but I was with some soldiers who did. How could anyone call it "big." It was 5cm in diameter!

BTW, I had a great time in Brussels thanks to your government. I was part of the motorcades with the royal family for the 50th Anniversary of the World War II liberation a few years ago. The Belgian government put me up in the Hotal Conrad. Very nice!!

[maxelson]

Originally posted by kovacs:
It was a B/W statement but instead of calling me names, try to prove me wrong, try to compare culture, food and art....and why are you so offended anyway ? You enjoy living in the US I enjoy living in Europe, lets keep it this way, European and American culture don't mix very well. And please tell me what good would this do to Europe or the US ? None... we will just get a cacophony of different cultures...

Nit: If I called you a ********, I'd be slinging names. I implied your post was ingnorant, and, I guess I am implying you are by extention.
Well, lets see. You seem to be saying "old culture= better culture". So, hows this. MY culture integrates yours, mine, and a legion of others'. MY food ranges from the poor example you cite to some of the finest quisine on the planet- and more varied than any one country's. Why? Because we have it ALL here. Music. Listen to Jazz? Hm Blues? Now where did that come from. Lessee...hmmm... So, your architecture is 1000 years old. Well, bully for you. We have styles intergrated from all periods and cultures... right here. Jeez, Boston alone... I won't tackle the TV comment because it is only slightly more absurd than the blanket "statements" made in the rest of your analysis of American Culture. Art? Right there. We have none. Well, none worth speaking of. Wyeth? Idiot. Lichtenstein? Hack. De Kooning? Freakish Hack. Nevelson? Avedon? SMith? Serra? Mercer? Rockwell? Whistler? Homer? Tanner? Cole? Davis? Cassat? Dinks all of them.
Chevys? Again. Absurd. Perhaps you'd rather be driving the Ford product half of the rest of Europe is driving? Ford? Now, where did that company originate?
How 'bout that movie you quote?

Now we have only scratched the arts. Oh. You want more? Mailer? Burroughs? Kerouac? Vonnegut? You could not possibly think Shakespeare and Marlowe were the only writers capable of writing that escapes time.

Let's go back to diversity, Mr. Sociologist (yep, name calling. I am a little, little man). Do I need to point out American history to you, or have you got that covered? From where do Americans come?

I have no trouble with preferential statements. But when you take it to the level of petty generalizing insult, expect to have the spade turned back on you.
Prove you wrong?
European and American culture don't mix? Buddy, American culture IS European culture. And African culture. And Hispanic culture. And Asian Culture.

Prove you wrong?
Visit. And then leave.

Some of us enjoy that cacaphony of different cultures. It adds richness. Diversity. Color. CULTURE. It IS who we are.

You ought to be careful. You're sounding a tad xenophobic (which is a very polite expression describing what originally struck me as... something different).

If you can find no culture worth exploring here, then you are simply NOT LOOKING.

As for what good a US empire would do... well, that is the point of this debate.

[schlumpf]

I think it is totally wrong to stereotype any nation. Who is the typical American anyway? America is a rich tepestry of cultures and individuals, some of with one can relate to and, naturally, others which are more difficult to understand or relate to.

However, Americans do not have to be surprised that many citizens of the world do not like them. The way in which most of us encounter American culture is through:

a) American foreign policy
b) American corporations
c) The American entertainment industry
d) Our own media

Lets run through what I believe to be many Europeans' view on the aforementioned:

a) American foreign policy is seen to be quite brutal, aggressive and self serving. (Examples: America's support of South American dictators, while toppling democratically elected governments that do not serve American corporate or political interests) It is also worth pointing out that Israel alone has received more development aid from the U.S. than the rest of the world combined (one might also add the fact that America contributes the smallest percentage of GDP to foreign aid of any western country).
b) American corporations are preceived to be predetory on the world market- ballooning to an ever greater size which they use to underbid locals, which results in us all eating the same burgers, which we wash down with the same soft drinks. When Columbians export cocaine to the US, the US send military aid to help get rid of the proucers and distributers. When foreign contries plan to stop importing American sigarettes, the US threatens sanctions to protect coroporate interests.
c) The picture of Americans presented to us though your entertainment industry aggrivates the picture described above. The following adjectives come to mind: Aggressive, violent, loud, shallow, obvious.
d) Our own media largely covers negative aspects of American life, such as violence, drugs, captal punishment, racism etc.

Please don't misunderstand me. This is not how I feel about America personally. I refuse to make value judgements about whole nations or groups of people. But most of the world does tend to make such judgements and think the world view of America has been influenced by the factors I outlined above.

sincerely
Schlumpf

[Timo]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Oh! I know! How about a nice, friendly global wahhabist theocracy?

LOL!

My take on pax Americana is it's an idea put forth with the most enthusiasm by expansionist politicians (often hawks) and Americans aligned with large corporate interests. After all, our market is currently saturated with McDonald's restaurants and big box retailers, so if you want to keep Ever Expanding, you gotta go offshore.

Pax Americana would be more interesting if it were primarily a idealistic export, or a democracy export [stop that snickering]. Instead, its cultural export component tends to be by-products of domestic consumption (some of them interesting, like movies; much of it not), while the foreign interest of the Federal government is primarily that of securing cheap raw materials or addressing trade inbalances.

Europeans in particular see the United States as a world-wide meddler. What many don't realize is that, e.g., 90% of American economic activity is domestic. Likewise, few Americans have passports and therefore few Americans travel abroad: even to Canada or Mexico. The United States is in point of fact profoundly isolationist in issues outside of its economic interests. To quote President John Quincy Adams:

America...does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

These sentiments, uttered in the early nineteenth century, are still very much in currency. This strand of thinking, for example, delayed the American entrance into both World Wars. Sure, there are cosmopolitan types primarily on the coasts who want to talk about New World Orders and run cultural exchange programs like the Fulbrights. But such free-thinkers are in the minority.

So pax Americana remains the fantasy of (European) history majors.* It runs against the grain of most of the American Experiment: we have enough to do just trying to govern the strange trapping of fifty seperate political entities supra-governed by a Federal authority.

You might say we have all the pax Americana we can currently handle.

*I mean, Americans who study European or Ancient history, another distinct minority.

[Timo]

Originally posted by kovacs:
You enjoy living in the US I enjoy living in Europe, lets keep it this way, European and American culture don't mix very well. And please tell me what good would this do to Europe or the US ? None... we will just get a cacophony of different cultures...

You know, you're free to live in your smug little burg, and to keep pretending there's a monumental gulf between "European" (what's that?) and "American" (explain please) culture. As if all of our modern cultures didn't spring from the same trunk.

You obviously haven't travelled much in North America or perhaps even outside of Francophone Europe. Forget the U.S.; there's more diversity in Canada than in Belgium.

Finally, if you'd traveled any bit at all, you'd realize that your smug, isolationist sentiment is nearly identical to the smug, isolationist sentiment ignorant Americans have about faraway, unimportant places.

[Lerkfish]

back to the original question: Whether an empire is ultimately good or bad depends on a great many factors.

Just like Aristotle (Socrates?) postulated, the best form of government might be the benign dictator. However, there is no such thing in practice.

Therefore, its a game of percentages. If the altruistic and nurturing instinct is balanced by the ruthless conquest instinct, then it can be a good thing.

If the balance tips the other way...then no. But this is true of all forms of governments or empires.

It would be way too easy to think, as a westerner, that a more western-style government in the mideast would therefore be an improvement. I'm not sure it would seem that way to the countries involved. Peace is good, of course, but there are many kinds of peace and at many kinds of costs for that peace.

If one has to completely subsume the culture of the region to achieve peace, then what is really accomplished for that region, except to become adopted children of the empire, having to ignore or forget their true heritage?

[Timo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
It would be way too easy to think, as a westerner, that a more western-style government in the mideast would therefore be an improvement. I'm not sure it would seem that way to the countries involved. Peace is good, of course, but there are many kinds of peace and at many kinds of costs for that peace.

I have to say I'd like to see what other kinds of idealistic, democratic systems come up in the world. The U.S. system is interesting and has its plusses, but like anything else it is a product of history and geography, and perhaps isn't a good model for abroad.

What does a Chinese democracy look like? A Persian one? What does the further development of an Indian democracy look like? To me these are more interesting than pax Americana.

[Timo]

Originally posted by maxelson:
You seem to be saying "old culture= better culture". So, hows this. MY culture integrates yours, mine, and a legion of others'. MY food ranges from the poor example you cite to some of the finest quisine on the planet- and more varied than any one country's. Why? Because we have it ALL here. Music. Listen to Jazz? Hm Blues? Now where did that come from. Lessee...hmmm... So, your architecture is 1000 years old. Well, bully for you. We have styles intergrated from all periods and cultures...

psst...Max! Relax! This is the ole Euro-smugness kicking in. Somewhere in the old city (they don't remember which bus to take anymore since moving out to the subdivision) there's a old cathedral dedicated to such-and-such, which proves once and for all who's got culture. Ah, but I never see this hierarchy extended by e.g., Western Europeans to, say the Greeks or (better) the Turks or (best) the Egyptians, who have still "older" cultures. Nah, a little too "third world", not enough Braun products there to take too seriously.

Look, they don't know the difference between Manet and Swartzenegger either. American culture is like pornography to them: no one admits to viewing it, but there it is on Saturday night. Diversity is for someone else, and culture is a way of distinguising yourself from the riff-raff, not something that might have intrinsic value in and of itself.

We know this is true because they don't go to their own (fabulous) museums any more than we do. It's the same with New Yorkers: everyone likes having the Met around as a bragging point, and you don't even have to go to feel good about it!

[Developer]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Is a 'Pax Americana' really such a bad thing?

Wow, you Americans really want to be hated, do you? Is that how your self esteem defines your importance?

[Timo]

Originally posted by Developer:
Wow, you Americans really want to be hated, do you? Is that how your self esteem defines your importance?

The question is asked by a true European. You might want to rephrase your scorn...