The Fall of Pax Americana
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
michaeledward
Grandmaster
I didn't claim that they are fair and unbalanced. Can I assume that you did not read the link, because you bring your prejudices to the site?Tgace said:
Oddly, this article was the 4th item on a Google search for 'US Military Forward Deployment'. For your research about our satelite nations here are the first three links.
http://www.discounttrainsonline.com/DML-Military-Models-Military-US-Forward-Deployment-Set-2/itemDML-71153.html
http://www.defendamerica.mil/
http://www.jda.go.jp/e/pab/8aramasi/def1361.htm
Oddly, I found these first three links did not provide nearly the information of the fourth link (although the 3rd link is pretty interesting). But, really, I wasn't digging for 'Liberal' information. I wanted to demonstrate that the United States Military is functioning as 'Satelite Nations', much like the Roman Empire.
Hell, if we can't deploy in Japan, Germany, Qatar, etc ... we can deploy from one of our 11 Aircraft carrier battle groups. Tactically armed with 2 nuclear submarines each, multiple battleships, over 100 aircraft, including dozens of air-to-air and air-to-ground combat aircraft.
Now .. guess how many equivilant battle groups our closest competitor can field ... .NONE ... that's right NONE .... and we gots eleven. How 'bout them apples.
michaeledward said:
Some of those forces in forward deployed countries, have contractual agreements with these countries/leases that allow us to stay there if the nations agree. We do not "occupy/police" Japan, Okinawa, Germany.... We left the Phillipines because the gov. didn't want to renew. And, from what my experience in the service showed me, our bases create more economic activity in the area than resistance (jobs, contracts, local goods for sale, touristy types of things for american troops with time and money to burn...). These bases were intended to act as presence and deployment jump offs. I think that, with the strength of the Euro-union, let them handle more of this type of thing themselves.
Countries like Kosovo, Bosnia and others we are really just a 'show of force' working independently regarding chain of command but in conjunction with the UN with VERY limited missions and VERY strict rules of engagement. I spent more time escorting the band, payroll officers and chaplains than anything else. All important in their way, but not the occupation/opression force that seems to be implied.
As far as the new Mid East occupations, haven't been there, don't know how successful it is but the intention is to establish stability and rebuilding. Bush and the Administration is suppose to be (qualifying because I don't know details) seeking support from other countries, but gee whiz there are very few who want to play
. Unfortunately, I fear that - in response to popularity pressures - we will either pull out before we have effectively accomplished stabilization so they can be self ruled or we will devote more effort to military operations than civil affairs coordination. Discovery Times had an analyst, don't remember the name, who said that (paraphrased) if the US is going to use the mechanisms of empire to establish stability and with the purpose of handing that power back to the locals once stability is in place, it is fine - but failure will be very costly - both in human suffering and political impression. I have to agree. Based on my experience with Bosnia, though, I still say that the most powerful force there was Brown and Root - the civilian contract company that hired local people to work on the base in the stores, coffee shops, food services, maintenance/janitorial services.... Locals got to interact on a human level with soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen to break down some of the assumptions on both sides. It was funny to us that one of our regular interpreters was a Serb and the other was Croat/Bosniac. They wouldn't work together, but they both loved us.
The employees made as much as 5/6 times the weekly salary that they could have on the local economy. The total number of forces there were just enough to handle a brush fire, after that - along with the poor communication/coordination planning for a serious threat - those guys sitting in Ramstein, Germany sipping brew and enjoying legal prostitution would have to haul *** to the Bos to reinforce/bail us out.
As far as the Navy, yeah they are real good at bussing Marines/SEALS to where they need to go. Air Force too - best military airline in the world. When it absolutely has to be there on time..... Only joking, honestly I got along really well with all branches on an individual level. I figured there is no point in pissing off the guy who might be handling my mail, cooking my food, driving the shuttle taking me somewhere or sticking a needle in my but for vaccinations
"Gee, Mrs. Clever your hair looks lovely today" "Well, Thank you Eddie Haskle"Morals are one of the things that a politician stands on in order to be elected, if they don't anty up and follow through, well they get voted out in four or so years. Roman 'governers' and Caesars usually had a heck of a lot longer to warm the ruling seat than that - regardless of the morals.Kaith Rustaz said:The truth is out there Scully.....and it's not wearing a toga this time.
So your point about Conspiracies is that these political idiots got successfully voted into office - even though they are idiots. Okay. If they are idiots, they are idiots. That would mean that they can't plan/implement/influence anything well, whether a conspiracy or a legitimate policy.
Who are truly successful in school - students who devote the time to do the work and study and get things turned in on time, or student who spend more energy and time trying to pull one over on the system? Generally it is the good students, with good work ethics. Also, based on any persons time in a school, place of work or the military, you know that rumors fly, secrets get out and very few things that are 'hush hush' are kept that way. My favorite line from the Harry Potter movies goes something like "of course the events of your battle with Valdemont are completely secret, so naturally the whole school knows" -
the Pentagon/White house from the insiders is a world of courtesans and power brokers - as it is in any political structure. Good juicy secrets never last long because someone, individually/party/group benefits from the informational release. This sort of takes away the altruism of how much 'truth' there is in a 'conspiracy' that has had to lid blown off of it. So even the exposure of a political conspiracy could be the product of a counter conspiracy to expose the conspiracy.....Damn, where to they find time to write bills, vote on policies, run investigation committees...
Not suffering from naivete, I know that there are plans that I am not privie to, but that also happens everywhere. Honestly, just because it is kept secret or plain old not shared with the general population doesn't automatically mean a cover up, conspiracy or evil plot. It might just be better that way. Ever keep anything from a family member because it wouldn't make the situation any better? Some therapists even counsel that it might be selfishness in the worst form to 'share' the fact that you had an affair: you feel better at the expense of your lover/wife/husbands pain. If you truly are repentent, you will stop and never do it again. Is that a conspiracy?
The truth isn't wearing high heals and ruffled collars either, or breast plates and chain mail, Kimonos and Katanas, Chinese purple/red silk, loin clothes and animal skins..... this type of thing has been happening in every civilization - anywhere that people are involved. If there were someone learned enough to be able to do it, a parallel could be made to the empirial courts of China and Japan as well. China's engineering campaigns rivaled/paralleled the Roman wall campaigns under Hadrian. The Road system, military training, state education.... all could be relatively compared to Rome. The Communist over throw of that 'empire' doesn't mean that they, like the USSR, threw away the tactics of politics that were Roman like in mechanism and style. Both China and Russian empire truly occupied lands and planted the national flag there - like the Romans.
The Nazi controlled Germany under Hitler during WWII was called the third Reich for a reason, along with all the visually obviously Roman trappings and ceramonial practices. Even the formal education of the Hitler Youth was based on the same indoctrinal policies used in Rome - sound body and mind. Physical/competitive endeavors raise the standard of the individual and therefore the quality of the state by the foundation of its youth. Shooting, track and field, boxing, field trips to the corners of the 'empire',... all were straight steals from the Roman Empirial machine.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
loki09789 said:Some of those forces in forward deployed countries, have contractual agreements with these countries/leases that allow us to stay there if the nations agree. We do not "occupy/police" Japan, Okinawa, Germany.... We left the Phillipines because the gov. didn't want to renew. And, from what my experience in the service showed me, our bases create more economic activity in the area than resistance (jobs, contracts, local goods for sale, touristy types of things for american troops with time and money to burn...). These bases were intended to act as presence and deployment jump offs. I think that, with the strength of the Euro-union, let them handle more of this type of thing themselves.
Countries like Kosovo, Bosnia and others we are really just a 'show of force' working independently regarding chain of command but in conjunction with the UN with VERY limited missions and VERY strict rules of engagement. I spent more time escorting the band, payroll officers and chaplains than anything else. All important in their way, but not the occupation/opression force that seems to be implied.
As far as the new Mid East occupations, haven't been there, don't know how successful it is but the intention is to establish stability and rebuilding. Bush and the Administration is suppose to be (qualifying because I don't know details) seeking support from other countries, but gee whiz there are very few who want to play
Based on my experience with Bosnia, though, I still say that the most powerful force there was Brown and Root - the civilian contract company that hired local people to work on the base in the stores, coffee shops, food services, maintenance/janitorial services.... Locals got to interact on a human level with soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen to break down some of the assumptions on both sides. It was funny to us that one of our regular interpreters was a Serb and the other was Croat/Bosniac. They wouldn't work together, but they both loved us.
The employees made as much as 5/6 times the weekly salary that they could have on the local economy. The total number of forces there were just enough to handle a brush fire, after that - along with the poor communication/coordination planning for a serious threat - those guys sitting in Ramstein, Germany sipping brew and enjoying legal prostitution would have to haul *** to the Bos to reinforce/bail us out.
As far as the Navy, yeah they are real good at bussing Marines/SEALS to where they need to go. Air Force too - best military airline in the world. When it absolutely has to be there on time..... Only joking, honestly I got along really well with all branches on an individual level. I figured there is no point in pissing off the guy who might be handling my mail, cooking my food, driving the shuttle taking me somewhere or sticking a needle in my but for vaccinations
So, to paraphrase you ...
If it looks like a forward deployment satellite nation . . .
and it smells like a forward deployment satellite nation . . .
and it tastes like a foward deployment satellite nation . ..
it ain't necessarily a forward deployment satellite nation
. . .and besides, It's Good For Them and We Know Better.
Right?
Please read a little humor ... a little sarcasm ... and quite a bit of truth into that response. - Mike
michaeledward said:
Read humor, pouted at the sarcasm (I am delicate - like a flower
) raised an eyebrow (Spock style - been practicing it for a while. I love the Bionic Man!)and thought about it. No, don't agree with your paraphrasing, after being deployed to Okinawa, supporting Operation Team Spirit with ROK military, I can tell you that Okinawa/Japan/South Korea were/are not 'satellite nations' of the US. Phillipines started out that way in the 1800's/early 1900's, but is no longer supporting US bases - Why? Because we honored the lease. I wouldn't ever imagine Rome tolerating such a thing. Bosnia, quite honestly was more influenced by euro contact than US (used the German Deutchemark and in the process of converting to a Bosnian Deutchemark....eventually adopting the Euro-dollar) and the country was broken up into zones of responsibility for stability (UN nations taking each area for command and control of operations.) other than that, we (all forces in the country) did very little to directly control day to day activity. The US sector, at least, had a policy of base restriction for troops. The local gov. handled day to day and major decision making independent of US approval. The UN on the other hand.... I can't wait to see the BMW/Mercedes factory that is built with the idea of stimulating the local economy (read, cheap labor/land for lower production costs/larger profits for German based business.).We weren't there, because we 'knew better', consider how much of technology has been foriegn imports. And the position of both countries in these lease agreements reverses the power roles that you are implying. We are leasing from them. Rome: Step into a country and tell them we are here regardless of what you really want. The original forward bases may have been established post WWII, but the current relationship/agreement is much more current and updated. Before anyone tries the "well what would you have known you were just a Marine/Soldier/Sailor/Airmen. You couldn't possibly have known what the TRUE intentions were", troops are smarter than people give them credit for - and we talk to each other: "enough unclass material can reveal classified intentions" was the thought of the day on active duty. We saw a lot of unclass info and knew more than they told us. Case in point, my MP unit 'knew' through the rumor mill that we would be deployed to Bosnia for over a year before we actually got the official notice.
By the very nature of the operations, pace of operations, quantity, interactions with locals.... we weren't there 'occupying' the nation for domination or to control trade. Rome had DOMINION over these satellite nations. Rome dictated market prices, taxation, overwatched local government with 'prefects/governors' and so on. They told the local government they could stay in charge, because Rome said they could. Not what was happening.
Now I will say that the American/Western Culture was a huge influence in both places. But it was/is an ecclectic of influences both US/Euro. American wealth/music (rap, hip hop...), Euro fashions/style, 'American Pizza', percieved American Freedom (notice I said percieved), Euro cars/motorcycles... a real hodge podge. I think that trade/market activities with these countries have created more influence than any military presence. Like Rome, western/American culture has become the 'thing' to be in many countries - but that doesn't make them Political/Dominion Satellites.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Why do these mysterious words...Korea, Subic Bay, Vietnam, Diego Garcia, Hawaii, Kuwait, Guam, Panama, Chile...float into my mind here?
rmcrobertson said:
Because you're hearing the voices of dead Romans calling on you to be the prophet for the new age to undo the wrongs that put them in the grave....you see dead people
Again, I don't remember the Roman Empire releasing Dominion over territories. Loosing control because of lack of finances or manpower yes, thus the power vacuum that lead to the medieval time period, misnamed the Dark Ages, but not the pulling out of the country when the limited time agreed upon ends. Roman rule was eternal or until it fell.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Now that is just plain funny.... :uhyeah: ... I didn't think you had it in you. Way to Go.loki09789 said:Because you're hearing the voices of dead Romans calling on you to be the prophet for the new age to undo the wrongs that put them in the grave....you see dead people
Mike
Hey, lets not pick on Hawaii here...
The US conquered them fair and square.
The US conquered them fair and square.
Actually,
King Kamehameha (SP?) conquered...I mean unified the Island a long time ago. After that missionaries went there, from Brit/Amer/Euro... to save the savages a long time ago. His successors made deals with Foriegners. Even the Hawaiian flag was designed to be a calling card of cooperation between Hawaii and their trade allies: US, Brit, and I think France. They WANTED to be 'invaded', or at least the ruling class. It, again, was more along the lines of the British Trade model than a Roman model. Doesn't make it any more right or wrong. But, there is dirt in any political/business dealings at any level on all sides, isn't that right?
King Kamehameha (SP?) conquered...I mean unified the Island a long time ago. After that missionaries went there, from Brit/Amer/Euro... to save the savages a long time ago. His successors made deals with Foriegners. Even the Hawaiian flag was designed to be a calling card of cooperation between Hawaii and their trade allies: US, Brit, and I think France. They WANTED to be 'invaded', or at least the ruling class. It, again, was more along the lines of the British Trade model than a Roman model. Doesn't make it any more right or wrong. But, there is dirt in any political/business dealings at any level on all sides, isn't that right?
No. US conquest for business reasons.
http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/archive/arc10.htm
President Clinton signes Public Law 103-150, the "Apology Resolution" to Native Hawaiians, on November 23, 1993.
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/publawsum.html
See also:
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/acknowledges.html
also this:
A search on Google for "clinton apology hawaii" (no quotes) will bring up 6,000+ hits on the subject of the US's illegal anexation of Hawaii.
http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/archive/arc10.htm
President Clinton signes Public Law 103-150, the "Apology Resolution" to Native Hawaiians, on November 23, 1993.
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/publawsum.html
See also:
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/acknowledges.html
also this:
from http://boxer.senate.gov/apa/timeline.html Sen. Boxer of California's website.
A search on Google for "clinton apology hawaii" (no quotes) will bring up 6,000+ hits on the subject of the US's illegal anexation of Hawaii.
Kaith Rustaz said:
Again, following the British/Dutch/Spanish trading empires more than the Roman Empirial model. How long were we/other foreign nations trading with the Hawaiians before this incident? What type of negotiation agreements were in place prior to this incident. I never said it was 'better' or more 'moral' just more a trade empire model than a Roman empire model.
Tgace
Grandmaster
If we were looking for territory, we would probably own North America, Central-South America by now...And Germany and France would have had no choice but to do what we told them during the Iraq invasion (due to our satellite nations being so close by), Lybian bombing during the 80's etc. What would the Romans have done to nations that thwarted them???
Sort of tangental but:
Interesting movie in class today about the burning of rome:
One theory: Nero started the fire to over rule the Aristocracies resistance to his construction plans to leave his architectural stamp on Rome.
Two theory: Early Christian guerillas started the fire in rebellion (a la 9/11, world trade center attack)
Three theory: Unfortunate accidental consequence of the constant fire hazard of open flame, flammable materiels and flammabe products in shops hear the Circus Maximus.
The historical scholar/archeo/anthro... the stable of 'ologists' each 'believed' a different theory. All looked at the same evidence/records (Roman historian of the time, and an aristocrat, Tacitus' texts combined with dig evidence, firematic experiments in controlled burning labs....) with different interps
Interesting movie in class today about the burning of rome:
One theory: Nero started the fire to over rule the Aristocracies resistance to his construction plans to leave his architectural stamp on Rome.
Two theory: Early Christian guerillas started the fire in rebellion (a la 9/11, world trade center attack)
Three theory: Unfortunate accidental consequence of the constant fire hazard of open flame, flammable materiels and flammabe products in shops hear the Circus Maximus.
The historical scholar/archeo/anthro... the stable of 'ologists' each 'believed' a different theory. All looked at the same evidence/records (Roman historian of the time, and an aristocrat, Tacitus' texts combined with dig evidence, firematic experiments in controlled burning labs....) with different interps
OP
OP
loki09789 said:
Wow, this conversation has really gone on well! Thanks Bob for all of the cool information. Thanks everyone for the counterpoints also.
Paul M - regarding your point about my motivations, I do have a bias. I believe that I have a grasp on many of the matters of this world, allowing me to form opinions regarding them - some of them are very strong indeed! Yet, I would not say that I am as blind as you fear. My opinions evolve in the face of new information. I would say that have a nasty prediliction for re-evaluating what I believe. This is done in order to meet my goal of being more deductive - more scientific. In the end, I find paradoxes amusing and education - a hallmark of a relativist.
A warning though, I am very idealistic. This is because I have lots of faith in people. It's the loss of idealism that you should be worried about. Those are the people who have chosen apathy.
Regarding your point about the usage of history...I see a bit of 1984 in this. I can picture Winston Smith sitting at his desk evaluating his tools and cutting out the pieces Big Brother has commanded. Down the memory hole it goes. "If you are referring to usefulness, you have to establish what type of goal or task is being accomplished" isn't that just a conscious decision to choose your bias? Is there any way to be objective when using history to predict future events? In biology, we feel like we can do this. Except we have billions of years to look back on and many more patterns to compare...
Which brings me to my next point, evolution. Many have brought up the point that (all) civilization follows a curve of rise and fall. In a way this is like many other collective organisms striving for the same resources. Populations dominate and fall to the way side. As homo sapians, are we doomed to forever repeat this pattern until we go down into the deep darkness of extinction? Or is it possible for us to learn from our history and elicit a new direction? Can we bring about a behavioral punctuated equilibria on the level of the industrial revolution in regard to linking globalism with humanism?
Some other points regarding the Roman Empire
1. Many of the comparisons that people have been making have been confused. There are two stages of the empire that are being reffered to (the Republic and the Imperium) and only one has many of the comparisons, in my opinion. The times of the Roman Republic contain most of the parables that are relevant to recent events. The Imperium has some relevance, but is far overshadowed by the relevance of Republican times.
2. The whole concept of term limits and checks and balances is a Roman concept. We stole the idea from them. We also stole (or the Oligarchs specifically planned for) the ways around them. Our constitution is a mirror in many ways to the Roman Constitution and in that way it sets us apart from other civilizations that have been bandied about. This is why comparison to the Roman Empire is so poignant.
3. The Roman Empire, in the days of the Republic, was not just a militarily dominated affair. In Greece and Egypt, they used trade and economics to dominate until their militaries grew to the point where the undermined governments were easily supplanted. In other situations, the Romans were invited by the people of the land to invade. For instance, in Spain, the people lived under ruthless kings who enslaved the populace. The Romans promised to make them citizens and give them rights they never had. Sometimes they were given complete autonomy afterward (Even with their own people in charge!)...this is, of course, after a Roman Style government was installed and economic/military alliances were established. Sound familiar?
4. The deaths of Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus and the times associated with those events, are reminiscent of the coup in which Bob refferred. When reading the history of those days, sometimes the parallels are breathtaking...
upnorthkyosa
OP
OP
Tgace said:
Aye, what really has happened? That is the question. Look at the ways in which we retaliate and look at the ways in which the Romans retaliated after the 1st Punic War? Carthage was too powerful militarily to defeat, so other tactics needed to be used in order to establish dominance.
Also, the concept of a cohesive empire with sattalite nations under ruthless control is not what happened in Roman times. People have a need of freedom and the more an empire attempts to control them, the more they rebel. Look at the empires that have ruthlessly suppressed their people and look at how long they lasted (Russia, Germany, Tokugawa Japan, and post Meiji Japan).
On the other hand, look at the Roman Empire, they did not survive so long by literally forcing their people into rebellion. They let them live under the rule of their own people. They shaped (the conquered) societies into mirrors of their own. In many cases, the common people of "satallite nations" hardly knew they were under "Roman Rule".
The people who did know that they were under "Roman Rule" were compensated duly. When one of them rebelled, a "coalition of the willing" was formed to deal with the "ruthless dictator". I'm not saying that Saddam wasn't a bad guy with this allusion, I'm just saying that we didn't really care about that stuff until he stopped doing what we told him.
Can anyone think of other examples where this principle of Pax Romana/Pax Americana has been seen in action?
upnorthkyosa
Whether Republic or Imperius, Rome was an Empire - the same way that England was whether there was only a King/Queen or a Queen/King with a Parliment....President is NOT the same as a Caesar because - unlike your reference to terms applying to Senators, this applies to the President. Direct relative comparison.
Rome used trade as well as military might yes, but they established dominion over the territory and dictated the market/taxes....
And the main point that is continuously side stepped is the idea that the basic values of the citizenry in each culture is VERY different. That is the most important difference as far as I am concerned. The government doesn't sponsor organized/professional sports. The hockey arenas, football stadiums....are privately sponsored. The violence is limited and not dictated by the President residing over life and death. It would not be tolerated because the morallity and view of torture and abuse is different than in Rome.
The closest sport comparison I can think of is boxing to gladitorial games and look at all the regulations that dictate 'safe' boxing now. A boxer has a referee decide if the fight will go on or not. They are not slaves/prisoners/POW's thrown into the ring for the entertainment of the POTUS - who decides whether one will have to live or die. We can't even fathom a death penalty being federalized. The buck has been passed down to the states - or decentralized depending on your opinion.
The mob LOVED the games. They cheered the blood and the death - not the likelihood of it or the risk of it but the inevitable PRESENCE of it. When an athlete is injured, the crowd murmurs and worries over him/her. When they can even partially get themselves off the field we cheer at his chance at recovery. The mob would boo that as weakness. They cheered the dead eye stare into the face of death - but they didn't say "No, he demostrated courage - even for a slave/prisoner/barbarian - spare him/her!" on a regular basis.
That basic difference in the values of those who will be voting representation into office will create the biggest difference between the two. The mechanisms can be similar, but that doesn't make one the other.
Rome used trade as well as military might yes, but they established dominion over the territory and dictated the market/taxes....
And the main point that is continuously side stepped is the idea that the basic values of the citizenry in each culture is VERY different. That is the most important difference as far as I am concerned. The government doesn't sponsor organized/professional sports. The hockey arenas, football stadiums....are privately sponsored. The violence is limited and not dictated by the President residing over life and death. It would not be tolerated because the morallity and view of torture and abuse is different than in Rome.
The closest sport comparison I can think of is boxing to gladitorial games and look at all the regulations that dictate 'safe' boxing now. A boxer has a referee decide if the fight will go on or not. They are not slaves/prisoners/POW's thrown into the ring for the entertainment of the POTUS - who decides whether one will have to live or die. We can't even fathom a death penalty being federalized. The buck has been passed down to the states - or decentralized depending on your opinion.
The mob LOVED the games. They cheered the blood and the death - not the likelihood of it or the risk of it but the inevitable PRESENCE of it. When an athlete is injured, the crowd murmurs and worries over him/her. When they can even partially get themselves off the field we cheer at his chance at recovery. The mob would boo that as weakness. They cheered the dead eye stare into the face of death - but they didn't say "No, he demostrated courage - even for a slave/prisoner/barbarian - spare him/her!" on a regular basis.
That basic difference in the values of those who will be voting representation into office will create the biggest difference between the two. The mechanisms can be similar, but that doesn't make one the other.
OP
OP
loki09789 said:
Oh! Oh! This could be a new thread! Think about the concept of corporate totalitarianism, then you don't have to squint so hard...
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
The Resurgence of Traditional Martial Arts in Modern Mixed Martial Arts
- Latest: isshinryuronin
-
-
-
