4 ms·

An alternate view, which is well supported by history, is that while empires are created by war, they are very good at bringing peace and prosperity for long pe

An alternate view, which is well supported by history, is that while empires are created by war, they are very good at bringing peace and prosperity for long periods of time. The Roman Empire delivered peace and prosperity to most of the Mediterranean basin for hundreds of years. The British Empire had a similar track record for a much larger area. So now I'm rooting for the American Empire and the Pax Americana. I would most certainly rather be living in the West (or Westernized parts of Asia), under the aegis of the US military, instead of some third world shithole that does not enjoy security treaties with the Americans.

tremon 11y ago
> while empires are created by war, they are very good at bringing peace and prosperity for long periods of time. For the people /within that empire/. As the NSA and general US foreign policy have made abundantly clear, the US does not consider anyone outside of their national borders "part of the empire". Your last paragraph sums it up nicely. Is "enjoying security treaties with the US" really a prerequisite for a prosperous life? Since no treaty with the US is purely military in nature, that sounds a lot like racketeering.
- chrismaeda 11y ago
  List of mutual defense treaties. This may be a good working definition of "part of the empire." They don't enjoy the same rights as US citizens but their security is guaranteed by the US military. http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/ http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/ I'm not sure that treaties with the US is a prerequisite for prosperity. On the other hand, I can't think of any rich country that is not good friends with the US?
  - danbruc 11y ago
    Which countries do you think actually depend on security guarantees by the USA? Do you really think Europe or Australia would fall when the USA disappeared tomorrow?
    - chrismaeda 11y ago
      Europe would become part of Greater Russia and Australia would become part of Greater China.
      - danbruc 11y ago
        What is your evidence for this this? Why do you think countries can not coexist? Why will countries always conquer everything they can?
        chrismaeda 11y ago
        My evidence is 5000 years of human history. What is yours?
        danbruc 11y ago
        Simply pointing to history seems a pretty weak argument because it totally ignores advances of human society. By that reasoning I should expect to live in a cave, to be a slave building monuments for my king or something like that. I argue essentially nobody wants to fight wars, everybody just wants to have a reasonable good life. In the past we fought wars because we had kings and dictators that could force their people to fight wars for them for whatever dumb reasons they pleased and without incurring high personal costs. But in a democracy, why would people send themselves to the battlefield? There are just no good reasons to fight wars. The most rational one is probably for resources, but simply trading them is increasingly often the more economic solution. What else? Religion, ideology, status? Why should I care? You want an Islamic state or a Communist society? Go ahead, try it, I don't care as long as you let me continue doing my thing in my country. Sure, there are still people around that feel the need to impose their religious and ideological believes onto others but that is a declining group. Or do you seriously believe China would go to war because they want to spread their political or religious views?
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  > For the people /within that empire/. Nope, for the "citizens" of the empire. Almost everybody else suffers, inside or outside. And don't expect the meaning of "citizen" to agree with the one we are used to (although, the next meaning should be clear enough by now).

tremon 11y ago

> while empires are created by war, they are very good at bringing peace and prosperity for long periods of time. For the people /within that empire/. As the NSA and general US foreign policy have made abundantly clear, the US does not consider anyone outside of their national borders "part of the empire". Your last paragraph sums it up nicely. Is "enjoying security treaties with the US" really a prerequisite for a prosperous life? Since no treaty with the US is purely military in nature, that sounds a lot like racketeering.

chrismaeda 11y ago
List of mutual defense treaties. This may be a good working definition of "part of the empire." They don't enjoy the same rights as US citizens but their security is guaranteed by the US military. http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/ http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/ I'm not sure that treaties with the US is a prerequisite for prosperity. On the other hand, I can't think of any rich country that is not good friends with the US?
- danbruc 11y ago
  Which countries do you think actually depend on security guarantees by the USA? Do you really think Europe or Australia would fall when the USA disappeared tomorrow?
  - chrismaeda 11y ago
    Europe would become part of Greater Russia and Australia would become part of Greater China.
    - danbruc 11y ago
      What is your evidence for this this? Why do you think countries can not coexist? Why will countries always conquer everything they can?
      - chrismaeda 11y ago
        My evidence is 5000 years of human history. What is yours?
        danbruc 11y ago
        Simply pointing to history seems a pretty weak argument because it totally ignores advances of human society. By that reasoning I should expect to live in a cave, to be a slave building monuments for my king or something like that. I argue essentially nobody wants to fight wars, everybody just wants to have a reasonable good life. In the past we fought wars because we had kings and dictators that could force their people to fight wars for them for whatever dumb reasons they pleased and without incurring high personal costs. But in a democracy, why would people send themselves to the battlefield? There are just no good reasons to fight wars. The most rational one is probably for resources, but simply trading them is increasingly often the more economic solution. What else? Religion, ideology, status? Why should I care? You want an Islamic state or a Communist society? Go ahead, try it, I don't care as long as you let me continue doing my thing in my country. Sure, there are still people around that feel the need to impose their religious and ideological believes onto others but that is a declining group. Or do you seriously believe China would go to war because they want to spread their political or religious views?
marcosdumay 11y ago
> For the people /within that empire/. Nope, for the "citizens" of the empire. Almost everybody else suffers, inside or outside. And don't expect the meaning of "citizen" to agree with the one we are used to (although, the next meaning should be clear enough by now).