Is there something inherently evil in a Pax Americana?

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Daniel David, Apr 17, 2004.

  1. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. I mean, is the idea sinful?

    Remember that Christianity thrived when the whole world knew peace.

    What are your thoughts.
     
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    And that was when?
     
  3. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    It certainly is unconstitutional.
     
  4. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does that automatically make it sinful or wrong?

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not sinful but if it is unconstitutional then it is illegal.
     
  6. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    The concept for a Pax Americana (global peace) was outlined in President George Walker Bush's 31-page The National Security Strategy of the United States of America [hereafter referred to as simply "the plan"] that was released on September 20, 2002.

    Journalist Jay Bookman observed that the plan "marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that the plan attributes largely to the attacks of September 11, 2002."

    In response to the threat of terrorism, Bush's plan calls for a "newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies." Bookman says that it speaks in blunt terms of what the plan calls American internationalism, of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.

    The plan "dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic" and, rather, speaks about convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities. "In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence."

    To accomplish this goal, the "United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."

    The plan repeatedly refers to terrorism, Bookman adds, which is misleading since the "approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by" the events of September 11. The same language is found in a report -- Rebuilding America's Defenses - Strategies, Forces and Resources For a New Century -- issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The report was co-chaired by Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt, with Thomas Donnelly the principal author. Bookman refers to the PNAC as "a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire."

    The plan goes on to say that, "At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals ... The challenge of this coming century," it continues, "is to preserve and enhance this American peace."

    The plan calls for the United States to "project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana." To do this, the plan calls for the United States to "increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent." For 2003, the Bush administration requested a defense budget of $379 billion, which equates almost exactly to 3.8 percent of the GDP.

    The plan advocates the transformation of the U.S. military to "meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system ... It urges the development of small nuclear warheads 'required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries.'"

    SOURCE
     
  7. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not sinful but if it is unconstitutional then it is illegal. </font>[/QUOTE]And ironically, there are many things which are sinful that are legal under that same Constitution. Is it possible that maybe there are times when the Constitution is wrong and maybe it ought to be changed?

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  8. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    We might as well read this straight from the horse's mouth -

    Statement of Prinicples of the Project for a New American Century:

    June 3, 1997

    American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

    We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

    As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

    We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

    We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

    Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

    Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

    • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
    responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

    • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

    • we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

    • we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

    Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

    Signed by:

    Elliott Abrams
    Gary Bauer
    William J. Bennett
    Jeb Bush
    Dick Cheney
    Eliot A. Cohen
    Midge Decter
    Paula Dobriansky
    Steve Forbes
    Aaron Friedberg
    Francis Fukuyama
    Frank Gaffney
    Fred C. Ikle
    Donald Kagan
    Zalmay Khalilzad
    I. Lewis Libby
    Norman Podhoretz
    Dan Quayle
    Peter W. Rodman
    Stephen P. Rosen
    Henry S. Rowen
    Donald Rumsfeld
    Vin Weber
    George Weigel
    Paul Wolfowitz

    - www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
     
  9. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes.
     
  10. Kiffin

    Kiffin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do any of you really want Pax Americana? The price would have to be

    1. A Military Draft - Probably need a large standing army of 1.5 million to 3 million troops to be the World's global policeman and to replace the troops lost in America's military actions.

    2. Higher Taxes to build up this Enormous Military machine to keep Pax Americana.

    Rome and Great Britain had great Empires but the price to finance these empires was costly in both manpower and money. It would require a change in the US Constitution. It would also be a betrayal of the Founders of the USA and their vision of a Constitutional Republic.

    More people need to read George Washington's 1796 speech On Foreign Entanglements
    http://www.tpromo.com/gk/files1/entangle.htm

    I do not believe the Constitution needs to be changed but the ideas of Jefferson, Madison and Washington are sound. To leave Jeffersonian democracy and to embrace American Empire is the road to ruin.
     
  11. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rep. Charles Rangel (D.-N.Y.) recently introduced legislation that would require “compulsory military or national service for men and women, ages 18 to 26, without exemptions for college or graduate studies,” according to the Washington Times

    Will the Draft Become the Most Important Issue in 2005?

    http://www.daveblackonline.com/will_the_draft_become_the_most_i.htm
     
  12. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is from Kyle Williams' latest column:

    Recently, presidential hopeful Ralph Nader told a group of supporters, "The Pentagon is quietly recruiting new members to fill local draft boards, as the machinery for drafting a new generation of young Americans is being quietly put into place.

    "Young Americans need to know that a train is coming, and it could run over their generation in the same way that the Vietnam War devastated the lives of those who came of age in the '60s."

    I'm no prophet, but I firmly believe there's no way a draft will be reinstated. Sure, there are plans out there and legislation being considered, but the politicians of America will never find their spines. Thus, they haven't the backbone needed to take a stand for the draft.

    Anyone supporting the idea of a draft is going to have a hard time finding strong support from any legitimate groups. If we're lacking troops, the obvious solution is to abandon our role as the world's policeman and use troops where needed.

    SOURCE
     
  13. Roy

    Roy
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/0710.gif>

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2001
    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    0
    In my view, the Pax Americana policy will spread U.S. resources too thin and make us more vulnerable to attack. In his book, " A Republic, Not an Empire," Pat Buchanan used examples of Germany and Japan, two imperialistic countries which were forever expanding their turf. German troops were heavily committed on all fronts and Japan had been at war with China for a while before the U.S. entered the fray (fresh and new) and cleaned everyone's clock.

    Buchanan made the point that our country is at risk of being over-committed, just as Germany and Japan were, due to expanding NATO committments and seeking to put out fires in other parts of the world. He wrote that book before 911, so we weren't committed at all in Afghanistan at that time and not as heavily in Iraq as were are now.

    Roy
     
  14. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Roy,

    Do you believe that the radical Islamic terrorist are happy enough to stay right where they are and leave the rest of the world alone?

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  15. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't mean alone of course. If we (joined by others who shared in what we stand for) were stationed throughout the world (including bases in hostile areas), couldn't we help enforce peace?

    Ken, that time I was talking about was the Pax Romana of course.
     
  16. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, we wouldn't assume control over countries, but if necessary, we would use force.

    America is not imperialistic. It would be the best interest of her own safety to make sure the oceans do remain a natural border.
     
  17. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can read about that in the book of Revelation.
     
  18. Roy

    Roy
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/0710.gif>

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2001
    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I really don't believe that. Let me just say that if we were following "Roy's National Security Doctrine," Arabs and other predominately Muslim nationalities would not be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. nor would they even be issued U.S. passports until the crisis has abated. It should be understood that our problem is with the Muslim religion. The ones that are called radicals are not really radical at all. They are simply getting back to the roots of their faith which calls for the death of Jews and Christians.

    I would recommend tighter security within our borders and should there be any further Islamic mass murders of U.S citizens, I believe that firing nukes at Mecca and Medina would be a viable option. Beats me why Israel hasn't done that already.

    Roy
     
  19. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you guys calling for world dominion?

    Isn't that what the evil empire was all about?

    But we're Americans, by definition not evil! :rolleyes:
     
  20. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's a question for those who want for America to take over the world:

    Would you support legalizing abortion, as in America, in places where it is presently illegal?
     

Share This Page

Loading...