The first stages of the decline of the Roman Empire and the end of Pax Romana, around AD 180, coincided with a large-scale epidemic: the plague of Antonine, which killed between 3.5 and 7 million persons.
Glad that we seem to be just in the beginning of Pax Americana!
Walter, If I get your drift, I think GWBush has given it a good boot in the behind to give it a good 'kick-start.' c.i.
So why did the US support Saddam against Iran, and sell him nerve gas?
Did you know Donald Rumsfeld was actually in Baghdad talking with Saddam on the day Iraqi forces launched the gas attack against Hallabja?
I have never stated that the U.S. leaders have never committed any blunders, giving to the immediate tactical tasks higher priority than to the strategic interests of their country and the whole world. Your examples, Steve, pertain to such blunders.
The question becomes, how many blunders will make Pax Americana? c.i.
American blunders are easier to correct: the USA is a democratic country, and political party at power has to prove every four years its eligibility to keep its representative in the White House. And if blunders overweigh achievements, the desired position will be filled with the competitors' representative.
And how is it possible to replace, for example, Saddam Hussein (for his bad will actions rather than for blunders), without human casualties?
But, how about on the world scene? Americans do not seem to be winning any popularity contests at the moment. How many 'friends' do we really have? It seems to me that the citizens of the UK, Australia, and Canada are becoming more disenchanted with our government. c.i.
Steissd
I think you have a rather naive faith in American democracy.
You can get rid of Saddam without cost to human life simply by waiting. He is I am reliably informed, mortal.
Steve, Don't you think THAT is the problem? Knowing that Saddam is mortal, he may resort to the scorched earth policy when he feels it's the end for him to guarantee a place in history. I wouldn't put it past an ego like his. c.i.
Saddam is surely, mortal, but no one can prevent him from appointing some of his family members to succeed the throne (I do not refer to Iraq as to a true republic). And I do not think that Udai or Kussai Hussein are more sane than their daddy.
I know that Mr. George W. Bush is also a son of President, but Mr. George H. W. Bush did not appoint him, he won the elections with minimum superiority in electors' voices, and he had all the chances to lose the elections. Udai or Kussai have no risk to find themselves in opposition if their father remains at power.
About naivety of my faith in American democracy: does this mean that Mr. Bush will win the elections in 2004 even if the absolute majority of the American people get disappointed with him? Then how did it happen that Mr. Carter lost to Mr. Reagan, and Mr. George H. W. Bush to Mr. Clinton?
Steissd
...and Mr A Gore lost to Mr G W Bush?
He actually did... But he has another chance in 2004 if he wins primaries in his own party.
Well he won't because he's not standing
OK. By all means, the elections in the USA in 2004 will be competitive, and none of the candidates will get 100 percent of votes, unlike Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
steissd, How you are able to compare the election in Iraq with that of the US (or in any other democracy) makes no sense to anybody. Why don't you say something that is more rational? c.i.
Iraqi Presidential ballot:
Place an "X" in the appropriate blank
____ Saddam Hussein
____ Please torture me and murder my family
Hmmm.. I don't remember that 2nd line being there! lol
At least, they have a choice.
I've heard of counties, states, countries, where there is one line for making an "X". :wink:
