Is America Becoming an Empire and is this at our peril?

[Sleestak]

Originally posted by: Vespasian
If I were president, I would let North Korea invade South Korea; China invade Taiwan; Iraq invade Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, and the UAE; I would stop importing trillions of dollars of goods from around the world; and I would stop donating millions of tons of food (after all, the EU has already convinced the starving people of Zambia that are food is poisonous). And if anyone asked me for help, I would say, "Go fvck yourself." But that's just me.

Hmmm. Better turn off your computer then. While you're at it get rid of all your kitchen appliances, TV, probably your car, DVD player, etc, etc, etc.... since none of that stuff you be here under your scenario.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: glenn1
Good article, although very lengthy. For those asking for a Cliff Notes version, here goes my attempt:


1. Author reaches the conclusion that America is indeed an empire, but more in the sense of its innate economic/cultural power and scope than an empire of ambition or conquest.
2. Defines the challenges facing, and the internal conflicts of America as an "imperial state" in a post 9-11 world.
3 and 4. Author links a settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict to the "big picture" of longer-term security for the U.S. Author states that a two nation-state solution is indespensible to achieving larger American strategic objectives.
5. States nation-building and relief efforts after conflict to be as important as military action during conflict. Author suggests that America is supremely competent at the later, needs lots of work in the former.
6. Outlines how Europe's assistance is needed by America to help mold post 9-11 democracy/nation-building efforts, but that Europe is militarily impotent, thus leading to mutual resentment from both America and Europeans.
7. Declares marginal, peripheral nation-states to be the new focus of where attention needs to be paid, after neglect due to geopolitical concerns have led to these places becoming center of gravity for Islamic and other virulent movements.
8. Dismisses claims of U.S. following Roman Empire pattern, while pointing out the risks for U.S. for doing so. States that America treating the Arab world as its gas station as an imperial power and seeking to do so without commiting political capital to greater American values such as democracy is risky.
9. Summarizes, and posits three possible outcomes for war on terror depending on American actions and policies, regime change followed by rule either authoritarian, Islamists, or democratic.

Pretty good assessment, except he leaves out the part where the US should just stay the hell out of the entire region (and the rest of the world, for that matter). Just send your cheeseburgers and hollywood movies.

Europe would be completely hosed if they had to stay out of the region. The middle easy is a bigger gas station for the Europe than it is the US.

They're doing fine getting oil through peaceful means. And I'm willing to bet, they'll also be prepared when it runs out in the next twenty years.

 

[Sleestak]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Sleestak

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: Pocatello
When we start to invade Canada, than let's talk about empire. Canada is full of natural resources...an easy picking too. Let's not forget those annoying French across the Atlantic either.

We successfully invaded Canada a long time ago. You folks just don't realize it yet because you're all stoned and don't care.

Didn't we burn down your first White House? Besides, we won that war.

Neither side won that war really. As for burning down the White House, no Canada didn't burn it down. They torched it, but the building was not a loss.

So, why are we not part of the US then? What happened to manifest destiny? I know we gave up a bit of land, like Detroit, but then, who whats that anyway ;-)

The war's purpose was not to control or annex Canada. The war started because the British kept stopping American ships, boarding them, and pressing them into service of the Royal Navy.

 

[Sleestak]

Originally posted by: hagbard

They're doing fine getting oil through peaceful means. And I'm willing to bet, they'll also be prepared when it runs out in the next twenty years.

The oil in the Middle East is going to run out in the next 20 years. Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha!! That's some funny stuff man. See if you can get a job as a writer on Conan.

Europe getting oil through peaceful means? Yeah if by peaceful means you mean selling weapons illegally to the Iraqis or helping Iran with it's nuclear program.

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: Sleestak

Originally posted by: Vespasian
If I were president, I would let North Korea invade South Korea; China invade Taiwan; Iraq invade Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, and the UAE; I would stop importing trillions of dollars of goods from around the world; and I would stop donating millions of tons of food (after all, the EU has already convinced the starving people of Zambia that our food is poisonous). And if anyone asked me for help, I would say, "Go fvck yourself." But that's just me.

Hmmm. Better turn off your computer then. While you're at it get rid of all your kitchen appliances, TV, probably your car, DVD player, etc, etc, etc.... since none of that stuff you be here under your scenario.

God forbid we start manufacturing more of our own goods.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: wQuay

Our military of 2-3 million is no match for 200 million armed citizens.

1. Not that many Americans own guns.
2. Many Americans are lazy and disinterested.
3. Most Americans are poorly informed and organized.
4. THe majority of people in the armed forces wouldn't go along with such BS.

As a veteran #4 is the most interesting. When I was active duty I was aware that my loyalty and duty were to my country, not an adminstration or a political party. As a soldier you do your duty apolitically. Your sworn duty is to protect and abide by the laws and the Constitution of the United States of America. To use military force against your fellow citizens within the borders of the U.S. is forbidden. If ordered to do so, I would have refused. If pressed hard enough, I would have deserted to join the citizens, as I believe most soldiers would do.

 

[Sleestak]

Originally posted by: Vespasian

Originally posted by: Sleestak

Originally posted by: Vespasian
If I were president, I would let North Korea invade South Korea; China invade Taiwan; Iraq invade Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, and the UAE; I would stop importing trillions of dollars of goods from around the world; and I would stop donating millions of tons of food (after all, the EU has already convinced the starving people of Zambia that are food is poisonous). And if anyone asked me for help, I would say, "Go fvck yourself." But that's just me.

Hmmm. Better turn off your computer then. While you're at it get rid of all your kitchen appliances, TV, probably your car, DVD player, etc, etc, etc.... since none of that stuff you be here under your scenario.

God forbid we start manufacturing more of our own goods.

Oh I agree but do you know what the sudden cutoff of the supply of goods from those countries would do to our economy? It would be UGLY and it would take years for us to refurbish, retool, or build new factories to make all that stuff. Plus since it would all most likely be built in union shops the prices would be outrageous! That DVD player you bought for $150 would be around $800. That stick of RAM you bought for $50 would be around $300.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: glenn1
Good article, although very lengthy. For those asking for a Cliff Notes version, here goes my attempt:


1. Author reaches the conclusion that America is indeed an empire, but more in the sense of its innate economic/cultural power and scope than an empire of ambition or conquest.
2. Defines the challenges facing, and the internal conflicts of America as an "imperial state" in a post 9-11 world.
3 and 4. Author links a settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict to the "big picture" of longer-term security for the U.S. Author states that a two nation-state solution is indespensible to achieving larger American strategic objectives.
5. States nation-building and relief efforts after conflict to be as important as military action during conflict. Author suggests that America is supremely competent at the later, needs lots of work in the former.
6. Outlines how Europe's assistance is needed by America to help mold post 9-11 democracy/nation-building efforts, but that Europe is militarily impotent, thus leading to mutual resentment from both America and Europeans.
7. Declares marginal, peripheral nation-states to be the new focus of where attention needs to be paid, after neglect due to geopolitical concerns have led to these places becoming center of gravity for Islamic and other virulent movements.
8. Dismisses claims of U.S. following Roman Empire pattern, while pointing out the risks for U.S. for doing so. States that America treating the Arab world as its gas station as an imperial power and seeking to do so without commiting political capital to greater American values such as democracy is risky.
9. Summarizes, and posits three possible outcomes for war on terror depending on American actions and policies, regime change followed by rule either authoritarian, Islamists, or democratic.

Pretty good assessment, except he leaves out the part where the US should just stay the hell out of the entire region (and the rest of the world, for that matter). Just send your cheeseburgers and hollywood movies.

Europe would be completely hosed if they had to stay out of the region. The middle easy is a bigger gas station for the Europe than it is the US.

They're doing fine getting oil through peaceful means. And I'm willing to bet, they'll also be prepared when it runs out in the next twenty years.

Peacefull means eh, so why was Europe so eager to join the gulf war in 91? Or does peacefull means that dont acknoledge that US military is a stabilizing force in the middle east?

 

[Jmman]

Holy crap, I have read books shorter than that. Unfortunately, without even reading that, I am sure that the writer has a political agenda that I don't agree with, so I am not even going to waste my time....

 

[tcsenter]

Cliffs Notes?

You should read it in its entirety, its actually quite flattering to the United States in many respects and brilliantly lends an insightful perspective to our current role in the world and why we have it. It is one of the more Pro-US articles I've read in a good long while, but it isn't blindly so, and certainly the most thoughtful and articulate I've read in a while.

It is kinda like deja vu, because I was just thinking a lot the last few days about this very issue, and this author puts into far more articulate words than I ever could PRECISELY my sentiments. Its just a little weird to sign on and read this article.

The author essentially admits 'yes the US behaves imperialistic' but stops short of out-right labeling us imperialists, and follows that admission with the caveat that 'SOMEONE HAD TO DO IT' or the world would be ran by despots, tyrants, megalomaniacs, madmen, and zealots.

Who else is going to police the world? Who else would you RATHER have do it? There isn't a European country in the whole continent except for England who would fight to save their own damned skin short of their own doors literally being kicked in. Further, you do not even have the luxury of asking the question 'who else would you rather have do it' if you cannot FIRST answer the question 'Who WOULD do it at all if not the US?' The United Nations? Please.

It is a matter of indisputable historical record that the United States pursued a national policy of isolationism until WWI, and even then it was loathe to get involved in either the war itself or its post-war policing. Hell, we were extremely hesitant to get involved in WWII, despite the urging of Roosevelt, his warning against inaction belonging to a distinct minority until Pearl Harbor.

After WWII we rightly came to the realization that the US can no longer afford to sit back and play the role of the reluctant firefighter; waiting for someone else to put out every small brush fire before it became a raging forest fire which threatens our community, then springing into action to put it out only when we start to feel the heat.

We finally woke-up and realized that Europe was and to a large extent still is to this day grossly incompetent more or less at managing their own affairs insofar as keeping the peace is concerned over on their side of the world, and so we took the regrettable but necessary measures to do it ourselves, and most of the world welcomed it at the time.

Continued...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Cliffs Notes?

You should read it in its entirety, its actually quite flattering to the United States in many respects and brilliantly lends an insightful perspective to our current role in the world and why we have it. It is one of the more Pro-US articles I've read in a good long while, but it isn't blindly so, and certainly the most thoughtful and articulate I've read in a while. It is kinda like deja vu, because I was just thinking a lot the last few days about this very issue, and this author puts into far more articulate words than I ever could PRECISELY my sentiments. Its just a little weird to sign on and read this article. The author essentially admits 'yes the US behaves imperialistic' but stops short of out-right labeling us imperialists, and follows that admission with the caveat that 'SOMEONE HAD TO DO IT' or the world would be ran by despots, tyrants, megalomaniacs, madmen, and zealots. Who else is going to police the world? Who else would you RATHER have do it? There isn't a European country in the whole continent except for England who would fight to save their own damned skin short of their own doors literally being kicked in. Further, you do not even have the luxury of asking the question 'who else would you rather have do it' if you cannot FIRST answer the question 'Who WOULD do it at all if not the US?' The United Nations? Please. It is a matter of indisputable historical record that the United States pursued a national policy of isolationism until WWI, and even then it was loathe to get involved in either the war itself or its post-war policing. Hell, we were extremely hesitant to get involved in WWII, despite the urging of Roosevelt, his warning against inaction belonging to a distinct minority until Pearl Harbor. After WWII we rightly came to the realization that the US can no longer afford to sit back and play the role of the reluctant firefighter; waiting for someone else to put out every small brush fire before it became a raging forest fire which threatens our community, then springing into action to put it out only when we start to feel the heat. We finally woke-up and realized that Europe was and to a large extent still is to this day grossly incompetent more or less at managing their own affairs insofar as keeping the peace is concerned over on their side of the world, and so we took the regrettable but necessary measures to do it ourselves, and most of the world welcomed it at the time.

The piece also warned about empires overextending themselves, and that military force used in a simplistic manner would be detrimental. This isnt just a "Give em hell Harry" article

 

[tcsenter]

Continued....

But we haven't had to save Europe's ass from a tyranical and murderous aggressor in a while, thanks in no small part to the United States preventing any from rising, so US military power should probably not be the ONLY representative and symbol of the United States that people are exposed to in many regions of the world. We aren't rolling through the streets to liberate Europeans, and when your military hasn't had to fight any great battles for a while, there just as here, people begin to take the military for granted and forget why its there; they resent it, demonize it, ridicule and belittle it.

A great analogy is when the world is caught in the grips of communicable disease, a vaccine becomes the great Savior and Liberator of peoples. 70 years later, the disease hardly crops its head up anymore, nobody has even heard of it for 20 years (precisely because the vaccine worked), and so you get internet conspiracy theorists creating web pages raging on about pharmaceutical companies and their evil vaccines that paralyze or kill one in three million people and how awful it is they force people to take it when the disease isn't even a problem anymore. DUH!

 

[tcsenter]

The piece also warned about empires overextending themselves, and that military force used in a simplistic manner would be detrimental. This isnt just a "Give em hell Harry" article

See above post. I somehow lost the last part of my post when cutting and pasting. haha

 

[wnied]

Could your post be any longer? How about you post a link to the article next time bright boy, rather than posting your short version of "War & Peace."


~wnied~

 

[tcsenter]

Could your post be any longer? How about you post a link to the article next time bright boy, rather than posting your short version of "War & Peace."

For crying out loud, put the porn down and read something intriguing and thought-provoking for a change. You might learn something...God forbid it requires spending 10 minutes.

 

[sandorski]

1)Yes
2) Yes


It's a very good article, although I disagree with the author's willingness and enthusiasm for American Imperialism. However, if the US Imperialism is to survive with any longevitiy, it would do well to heed the author's suggestions/analysis.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

I don't know, maybe we should ask Rome in 273 b.c. (roughly). I think we can agree that the world no longer requires one to conquer physical land to be the ruler of the world...

 

[StinkyPinky]

America did conquer land in the 1800's as it spread west across what is now the United States. So in a way it is. Although I don't consider the US to be a empire in the same tradition as the Romans and British.

When China starts to dominate (and with 1.3b, they will sooner or later), will people consider them an empire? Probably not because they haven't conquered anything in the last 2000 or so years.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: A5

Is America Becoming an Empire

Not by definition, since we don't have an emperor.

Incorrect. Empire has nothing to do with one man ruling it all. That system is known as autocracy. Empire is "a group of states among which one (the metropole) controls the internal and external affairs of other (the peripheries)"

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Sleestak

Originally posted by: hagbardEurope getting oil through peaceful means? Yeah if by peaceful means you mean selling weapons illegally to the Iraqis or helping Iran with it's nuclear program.

Irans nuclear program? Do you mean that nuclear reactor Russians sold them? Are you absolutely 100% sure that it is being used for nuclear weapons? How do you know they don't use it for something like.... Oh, I don't know... Generating electricity? Do you simply think that "Hmmm.... This country is an enemy of US. OMG, they have a nuclear reactor! That's clear evidence that they have plans to obtain nuclear weapons!". Finland has several nuclear reactors, yet we don't have any plans to get nukes. Same goes for majority of countries that happen to have nuclear power-plants.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: A5

Is America Becoming an Empire

Not by definition, since we don't have an emperor.
(And if someone tried to become one, then everyone would be quite glad for the 2nd Amendment; but of course, if anyone did that, they'd probably have control of the military first, so we'd all be screwed.)

We also do not hold territory, which also contradicts what an empire is.


Our military of 2-3 million is no match for 200 million armed citizens.

I was gonna say that this is the big one. we aren't expansionist, not in a long time anyways.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Sleestak

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Sleestak

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: Pocatello
When we start to invade Canada, than let's talk about empire. Canada is full of natural resources...an easy picking too. Let's not forget those annoying French across the Atlantic either.

We successfully invaded Canada a long time ago. You folks just don't realize it yet because you're all stoned and don't care.

Didn't we burn down your first White House? Besides, we won that war.

Neither side won that war really. As for burning down the White House, no Canada didn't burn it down. They torched it, but the building was not a loss.

So, why are we not part of the US then? What happened to manifest destiny? I know we gave up a bit of land, like Detroit, but then, who whats that anyway ;-)

The war's purpose was not to control or annex Canada. The war started because the British kept stopping American ships, boarding them, and pressing them into service of the Royal Navy.

Liberating them from American oppression

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: glenn1
Good article, although very lengthy. For those asking for a Cliff Notes version, here goes my attempt:


1. Author reaches the conclusion that America is indeed an empire, but more in the sense of its innate economic/cultural power and scope than an empire of ambition or conquest.
2. Defines the challenges facing, and the internal conflicts of America as an "imperial state" in a post 9-11 world.
3 and 4. Author links a settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict to the "big picture" of longer-term security for the U.S. Author states that a two nation-state solution is indespensible to achieving larger American strategic objectives.
5. States nation-building and relief efforts after conflict to be as important as military action during conflict. Author suggests that America is supremely competent at the later, needs lots of work in the former.
6. Outlines how Europe's assistance is needed by America to help mold post 9-11 democracy/nation-building efforts, but that Europe is militarily impotent, thus leading to mutual resentment from both America and Europeans.
7. Declares marginal, peripheral nation-states to be the new focus of where attention needs to be paid, after neglect due to geopolitical concerns have led to these places becoming center of gravity for Islamic and other virulent movements.
8. Dismisses claims of U.S. following Roman Empire pattern, while pointing out the risks for U.S. for doing so. States that America treating the Arab world as its gas station as an imperial power and seeking to do so without commiting political capital to greater American values such as democracy is risky.
9. Summarizes, and posits three possible outcomes for war on terror depending on American actions and policies, regime change followed by rule either authoritarian, Islamists, or democratic.

Pretty good assessment, except he leaves out the part where the US should just stay the hell out of the entire region (and the rest of the world, for that matter). Just send your cheeseburgers and hollywood movies.

Europe would be completely hosed if they had to stay out of the region. The middle easy is a bigger gas station for the Europe than it is the US.

They're doing fine getting oil through peaceful means. And I'm willing to bet, they'll also be prepared when it runs out in the next twenty years.

Peacefull means eh, so why was Europe so eager to join the gulf war in 91?

The believed that Iraq was acting as an aggressor. As I recall, the support from Europe wasn't very strong.

Or does peacefull means that dont acknoledge that US military is a stabilizing force in the middle east?

You mean destabilizing.

 

[Sleestak]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Sleestak

Originally posted by: hagbardEurope getting oil through peaceful means? Yeah if by peaceful means you mean selling weapons illegally to the Iraqis or helping Iran with it's nuclear program.

Irans nuclear program? Do you mean that nuclear reactor Russians sold them? Are you absolutely 100% sure that it is being used for nuclear weapons? How do you know they don't use it for something like.... Oh, I don't know... Generating electricity? Do you simply think that "Hmmm.... This country is an enemy of US. OMG, they have a nuclear reactor! That's clear evidence that they have plans to obtain nuclear weapons!". Finland has several nuclear reactors, yet we don't have any plans to get nukes. Same goes for majority of countries that happen to have nuclear power-plants.

Last time I checked Finland doesn't train terrorists or support them in any way. I've also never heard anyone from Finland call the United States the "Great Satan" and call for our destruction. Iran is in pursuit of nuclear weapons, to think otherwise is just hiding your head in the sand.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Cliffs Notes?

You should read it in its entirety, its actually quite flattering to the United States in many respects and brilliantly lends an insightful perspective to our current role in the world and why we have it. It is one of the more Pro-US articles I've read in a good long while, but it isn't blindly so, and certainly the most thoughtful and articulate I've read in a while.

It is kinda like deja vu, because I was just thinking a lot the last few days about this very issue, and this author puts into far more articulate words than I ever could PRECISELY my sentiments. Its just a little weird to sign on and read this article.

The author essentially admits 'yes the US behaves imperialistic' but stops short of out-right labeling us imperialists, and follows that admission with the caveat that 'SOMEONE HAD TO DO IT' or the world would be ran by despots, tyrants, megalomaniacs, madmen, and zealots.

Though I don't know what make the US so special as to think they are the one's with the devine right to manipulate the world to their liking.

Who else is going to police the world? Who else would you RATHER have do it?

The UN security council with the force of member nations.

There isn't a European country in the whole continent except for England who would fight to save their own damned skin short of their own doors literally being kicked in. Further, you do not even have the luxury of asking the question 'who else would you rather have do it' if you cannot FIRST answer the question 'Who WOULD do it at all if not the US?' The United Nations? Please.

Quite the argument you have there against the UN....not. Its not ideal but I sure bets the US running around the globe doing what's in "America's best interests" while abusing the rights of everyone else on the planet.

It is a matter of indisputable historical record that the United States pursued a national policy of isolationism until WWI,

Spanish American war right a bell?

and even then it was loathe to get involved in either the war itself or its post-war policing. Hell, we were extremely hesitant to get involved in WWII, despite the urging of Roosevelt, his warning against inaction belonging to a distinct minority until Pearl Harbor.

After WWII we rightly came to the realization that the US can no longer afford to sit back and play the role of the reluctant firefighter; waiting for someone else to put out every small brush fire before it became a raging forest fire which threatens our community, then springing into action to put it out only when we start to feel the heat.

We finally woke-up and realized that Europe was and to a large extent still is to this day grossly incompetent more or less at managing their own affairs insofar as keeping the peace is concerned over on their side of the world, and so we took the regrettable but necessary measures to do it ourselves, and most of the world welcomed it at the time.

Continued...

Spoken like a truly insulated American empirialist.