Talk:Pax Americana

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Expanded

I expanded the article. Added to the earlier history. Still need some more recent history info. J. D. Redding 14:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basic

This is as of yet a very crude and inadequate description of the Pax Americana. PA is not really a reality or a mantle directly assumed by the US consciously at any point - you will never hear a policy pronouncement referring to it. It is more a contemporaneous label applied to classify apparent American hegemony in imperialistic terms; the Pax Romana/Britannica being descriptors directly assumed by Imperial precursors of the United States. --Corinthian (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added your quote. AEC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.229.54.60 (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American imperialism?

Really? Did i just see that? This violates Wiki's stance on neutrality in so many ways that i can't begin to describe them all and still have time for the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, its required by the neutrality stance because of that attitude, also see —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.35.147 (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duration?

Since Pax Americana is suppose to be a period of relative peace, can we attach some kind of time period to this? Is it 1946 to present? or 1991 to present? or 1991 to September 11, 2001?? 173.32.178.19 (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World War I and the American Public

The American public's feelings towards World War I in this article seem heavily focused on the work of Lewis Einstein and suggests far more support for the Allies than can realistically be assumed. It ignores the heavy German cultural heritage present in America up until the 1920s and, because the source is from 1918, overlooks the fact that American intervention in WWI was disfavored by a significant amount of the public. America's entry into World War I is probably the most unpopular entry into war in the history of the country. Either this opinion should be verified by a more modern source or edited to reflect a realistic examination of this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.28.34.158 (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pax Cold War

how does that work? PA is grossly flawed if the Cold War is ignored. And Korean Conflict and Nam weren't cold. 74.60.161.158 (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

USAsphere.svg

I agree with

SantiLak about the relevance of this image, especially when it is being added to the section American imperialism. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers. —

Talk to my owner:Online 06:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

What??

Is this a joke article?? "relative peace", seriously?? After 40 years of

War in Iraq, the War in Afghanistan, and had their fair share of influence in many other wars. The article seems to give way too much undue weight to absurd biased sources. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep in mind the massive scale of war from maybe the 18th century up to and including World War 2. --Agamemnus (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if quote.

"The larger states were surrounded by smaller states, but these had no anxieties: no standing armies to require taxes and hinder labor; no wars or rumors of wars that would interrupt trade; there is not only peace, but security, for the Pax Americana of the Union covered all the states within the federal constitutional republic."

Sounds like a quote or horribly bad tense. --Agamemnus (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pax Americana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 02:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

9/11?

Did Pax Americana that started in 1918 during WW1 ended on 9/11? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.232.17 (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline

I think we need a new section on "decline" as clearly "Pax Americana" is not what it once was. By all means the "relative peace" has been over since Vietnam, Iraq especially.

Not to mention the GDP of China now surpassing the US in PPP, and the Paris climate deal going ahead without the US. The US also pulling out of many European bases, and the European Union looking to implement it's own armed forces without the US.

I think this should be accredited to way before Bush, and It certainly is in decline.

Anyone's thoughts on this? Jack Coppit (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pax Americana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biased essay

This article is a POV essay. The term "Pax Americana" is inherently biased towards the view America is/was an Empire. The term derives from the Latin Pax Romana, which was an Empire. Such a comparison is not neutral. As a non-neutral term, this article needs to be primarily a historiography - term origins, who uses, why. Instead, the article simply gives a history of events as if the term is a neutral description, in effect supporting its usage. There is one little section at the end saying a few people disagree America is/was an Empire, but this is not sufficient weight, nor it is mentioned in the lead section.-- GreenC 18:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pax_Americana&oldid=1209669042"