Talk:Pax Americana/Archive 1

message: The word "isolationism" is a) a smear word b) a loaded word c) a weasel word and d) an imprecise word.  It has no place as an adjective in an article that hopes to be NPOV.   Paul 06:58, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Isolationism" 

message: This article starts off well, then loses its focus. It is incomprehensible once it gets into a discussion of isolationism. By analogy with Pax Romana and Pax Britannica, I understand Pax Americana to be a time period (now) with no major wars where international relations are dominated by the USA. The question of whether America is an "empire" is secondary. America is different than Britain or Rome, so Pax Americana will be different. If I were working on this, I would figure out when the term came into usage and what time period it refers to (post WWII or post-ColdWar?). Sorry, I'm not too familiar with this topic and can't do the research right now--just some advice. AdamRetchless 22:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are countries that, together, speaking by GDP rather than military build-up, could engage in very significant wars with the US.  China, the 2nd largest country by GDP has 8,000 billion GDP PPP (USD) compared to the US' 12,300 billion.  Japan, the 3rd largest by GDP has 4,000 billion.  The European Union is equal to the US', at 12,300 billion.  See List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP).  On the other hand, these countries presently lack the military build-up to be actually able to engage in big wars with the US, though economically they would be able to do so.  There are powers large enough to have big wars with.--Nectarflowed T 23:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Classifying historical periods before they have ended is academically fallacious. Personally I am sceptical that the term has any merit: Even though there have been no major wars between the larger world powers, this is not a peaceful period in human history (and development is not driven solely by one country). Consequently I've inserted the word "relative" in the opening blurb. Wiki-Ed 19:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Pax Americana? 

message: I'm not knowledgable enough to produce something, but shouldn't there be some comment in here about JFK and his speech denying the goal of a Pax Americana?
*Yes; I've added it. 68.144.31.71 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kennedy 

message: As to the paragraph "Some refer to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Pentagon, the New York WTC, and Pennsylvania in the USA as the end of the Pax Americana":
a) WHO is (or were) the evanescent "some" that refers to 9/11 as "the end of Pax Americana"?
b) Was there ever any "attack on Pennsylvania"?
--Zack H. Venturi 23:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears someone's edited that silly statement out, well done. However, the insertion of the [citation needed] tag is truly risible - would you believe, that this assertion is made on Wikipedia's very own page on the British Empire, where it is both justified and cited by external references... read the article! Philip Legge phi1ip@netscape·net 00:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References or sources, please! 

message: "During both Pax Romana and Pax Americana wars continued to occur, but it was still a prosperous time for the civilization."
What is prosperous? Does it mean that the economy is good? Or the people are happy? The latter is in my opinion influenced by other countries and how they look at the country.
If that is the case, then how are the wars in Korea & Vietnam, the debacle in Teheran and the Cold War prosperous? There was no Pax in the period afther WWII, it was just one big Bellum for the US! I don't live in the US so I can't of course decide whether the morale in those days of war were good or not, but Europe didn't look to friendly at the US and The Netherlands in particular. Mallerd 13:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prosperous

message: Does the fact that Pax Americana is like Pax Romana have to be mentioned three times in the introduction? Twice in the same paragraph, one after the other. H7dders 15:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pax Romana

message: The first time I came across this topic the thing that struck me the most was the suggestion that so little warring has occurred since WWII as suggested in the intro. This is only true if looking at the world through a Eurocentric lens (i.e. looking only at Europe, Canada, and the USA). I have not researched for articles countering the intro., but its so blatantly Eurocentric. If anyone is interested in adding counter arguments - look into the fact that the intro is only true if you ignore Latin America, Africa, and Asia.70.171.22.172 (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurocentrism