Full Version: British Empire and the New American Empire...
I notice that a number of posters have argued that America at the moment through its global role as the only hyperpower exercises a benevolent hegemonic role in international relations compared to the Britsih Empire at its height of power.
I would disagree with that statement. Firstly the driving force behind the growth and expansion of the American Empire is corporate self-interest, not the liberal desire to educate and emancipate the peoples of the world. Although at certain times in British history it was certainly true that private interests guided the development of the Empire, in India before the 1851 Mutiny and Cecl Rhodes during the Scrambel for Africa in the late eighteenth century, the majority of colonial civil servants were trained primarily to help the natives throughout the Empire.
Secondly the British said that they were an Empire, many Americans still refuse to accept such a thing, which means that we get the US interference without the long-term development of these neocolonial dependant states. The US tendancy is to go in and than go out.
Moreover, the British approach to Empire tended to be pragmatic and subtle for as long as possilbe, a direct contrast to the brutish in-your-face Texan approach of the current Adminstration which is designed to magnify anti-American feeling and desires to restrain the hegemonic power of the United States. The British however, always avioded anti-British emotions which was why they managed to remain in their role so long. Finally as the Dollar Hegemony in the world is increasingly threatoned, the Empire may collapse through its own internal contradictions, is the American Empire about to implode? What will happen after that?
What do you think?
I would disagree with that statement. Firstly the driving force behind the growth and expansion of the American Empire is corporate self-interest, not the liberal desire to educate and emancipate the peoples of the world. Although at certain times in British history it was certainly true that private interests guided the development of the Empire, in India before the 1851 Mutiny and Cecl Rhodes during the Scrambel for Africa in the late eighteenth century, the majority of colonial civil servants were trained primarily to help the natives throughout the Empire.
Secondly the British said that they were an Empire, many Americans still refuse to accept such a thing, which means that we get the US interference without the long-term development of these neocolonial dependant states. The US tendancy is to go in and than go out.
Moreover, the British approach to Empire tended to be pragmatic and subtle for as long as possilbe, a direct contrast to the brutish in-your-face Texan approach of the current Adminstration which is designed to magnify anti-American feeling and desires to restrain the hegemonic power of the United States. The British however, always avioded anti-British emotions which was why they managed to remain in their role so long. Finally as the Dollar Hegemony in the world is increasingly threatoned, the Empire may collapse through its own internal contradictions, is the American Empire about to implode? What will happen after that?
What do you think?
I think its very difficult to see through the distorting lens of history and form an accurate description of the reasons why the British empire was formed. But I certainly don't agree that it was created by any urge to help or educate the rest of the world!
I think its more likely that Britain (with its then vast navy) had the opportunity and they took it before their French, Dutch and/ or German rivals did. And that international trade was the real reason why.
I certainly don't agree that America is forming a comparative empire either. I do believe that America is consolidating its geo strategic hold over the post cold war planet though, and I think that if a reason is needed to explain this then international trade is again the true prize.
I think its more likely that Britain (with its then vast navy) had the opportunity and they took it before their French, Dutch and/ or German rivals did. And that international trade was the real reason why.
I certainly don't agree that America is forming a comparative empire either. I do believe that America is consolidating its geo strategic hold over the post cold war planet though, and I think that if a reason is needed to explain this then international trade is again the true prize.
QUOTE(Thomas @ Mar 30 2003, 09:23 AM)
is the American Empire about to implode? What will happen after that?
What do you think?
What do you think?
This is the question Thomas would like us to debate.
Thread now open - enjoy your debate!
Jaime
He also asks "Are they similar or different?" in his title...
He also asks "Are they similar or different?" in his title...
We had a discussion via private message and the question for debate is:
QUOTE
is the American Empire about to implode? What will happen after that?
What do you think?
What do you think?
okay... 
QUOTE
is the American Empire about to implode? What will happen after that?
What do you think?
What do you think?
Because I don't see America as actually having an Empire, I don't think the consequences of any collapse of American global influence as having the same social reverberations as happened in Britain. Apart from anything else, Britain had to fight the two world wars as its power waned, and I don't think we will see a third world war.
IF the dollar's position was usurped, then I think it would have severe social consequences, but I don't think it would really threaten America's position as the dominant world power since the only currency that can really threaten the Doallar is the Euro, and Europe does not have the strength in unity to credibly threaten the USA.
I don't believe America ever really had an empire, or wanted one... until now that is. And whether we (not you and I, but our elected officials) want one now is open to debate. Colin Powell simply but eloquently denies it.
But there is no question that a new school of thought concerning America's role in the world is very influential in this administration. Empire or not, that school advocates an actively interventionist U.S. role in promoting democracy and human rights around the world. Here's a home page for that school of thought, and I'd say a very important one considering that it's Statement of Principles is signed by, among others, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. There are many articles on that site that are worth reading whatever your PoV.
Is that a good policy? I'm not sure yet. It's contrary to the kind of foreign policy I've always favored, a kind of hawkish isolationism in which America would not be shy about using force when necessary in it's own interests, but also one in which we would be "the friends of liberty everywhere but the guardians only of our own." These PNAC folks make some very good arguments for "carrying Liberte, Fraternite, Egalite on the points of our bayonets" and I'm not sure I have answers to many of them. I'll have to give this further thought.
Here are some very cogent thoughts on Republic or Empire by Jerry Pournelle, an author with whom I continually find myself on the same wavelength. He's not just a sci-fi writer by the way; he's also co-author (with Stefan T. Possony) of The Strategy of Technolgy, a classic of Cold War strategy that I'm told is still used as a text at the Army War College, and holds a Ph.D. in Political Science as well (along with several other degrees not directly relevant), so he is more than qualified to write on the subject.
Oh, heck no! We're only just getting started. Empires implode (if they do) in their old age. This one (if that's what it is) is brand new.
But there is no question that a new school of thought concerning America's role in the world is very influential in this administration. Empire or not, that school advocates an actively interventionist U.S. role in promoting democracy and human rights around the world. Here's a home page for that school of thought, and I'd say a very important one considering that it's Statement of Principles is signed by, among others, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. There are many articles on that site that are worth reading whatever your PoV.
Is that a good policy? I'm not sure yet. It's contrary to the kind of foreign policy I've always favored, a kind of hawkish isolationism in which America would not be shy about using force when necessary in it's own interests, but also one in which we would be "the friends of liberty everywhere but the guardians only of our own." These PNAC folks make some very good arguments for "carrying Liberte, Fraternite, Egalite on the points of our bayonets" and I'm not sure I have answers to many of them. I'll have to give this further thought.
Here are some very cogent thoughts on Republic or Empire by Jerry Pournelle, an author with whom I continually find myself on the same wavelength. He's not just a sci-fi writer by the way; he's also co-author (with Stefan T. Possony) of The Strategy of Technolgy, a classic of Cold War strategy that I'm told is still used as a text at the Army War College, and holds a Ph.D. in Political Science as well (along with several other degrees not directly relevant), so he is more than qualified to write on the subject.
QUOTE
is the American Empire about to implode?
Oh, heck no! We're only just getting started. Empires implode (if they do) in their old age. This one (if that's what it is) is brand new.
America sure is an Empire , it is based on financial hegemony. Other countries are being very respectful (even if it doesn't always look like that) of the US because they fear losing contracts or financial aid. In order to remain on top of a financial empire some interesting tactics are being used by some very influential people. It is best described in this article [URL=http://www.tmtmetropolis.ru/stories/2003/03/28/120.html]
Can't dispute that we have plenty of economic clout, and I'm sure glad we do, but I don't see how that constitutes an Empire in the political or historical sense. The article didn't help because I couldn't stand to read past the first paragraph due to blatant lies, absurd slander and lurid propaganda. Where in the name of V.I. Lenin did you find that horrible trash? (Nm, just inadvertantly answered my own question.)
Which is not to say that I wouldn't be willing to discuss such theories if raised non-propagandistically with reason and fairness ...
But aside from that, welcome!
QUOTE
Before the first cruise missile crushed the first skull of the first child killed in the first installment of George W. Bush's crusade for world dominion, the unelected plutocrats occupying the White House were already plying their corporate cronies with fat contracts to "repair" the murderous devastation they were about to unleash on Iraq. There was, of course, no open bidding allowed in the process; just a few "selected" companies -- selected for their preponderance of campaign bribes to the Bushist Party, that is -- "invited" to submit their wish lists to the War Profiteer-in-Chief.
Which is not to say that I wouldn't be willing to discuss such theories if raised non-propagandistically with reason and fairness ...
But aside from that, welcome!
There was no propoganda in that paragraph, just a lot of hyperbole.
Izdaari, I was going to quote that same paragraph...
When you open a piece with that kind of blatant *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***, don't expect too many serious thinking folks to read any further...and the retoric never gets any better in that article, although they do provide some links at the bottom.
The article says nothing about an American Empire, however. Just war profiteering.
Back to subject...the US has a type of financial empire, but it is certainly not controlled by the government. This type of empire comes from our free(er) market economy and capatalistic approach. This type of system is not exclusive to the US, it is not enforced militarily (as the British Empire was), and I certainly do not see the system collapsing anytime soon.
Of course, the US government does support American business, it has and will for all time, in all likelihood. It does so mainly through tariffs (rare) and occasional trade sanctions against unfair competitors. It does not take a heavy handed approach to "enforcing" the American economic empire.
The "Empire" is probably unassailable from an economic standpoint. However, anyone can join it. Companies from all over the world benefit from the American system, often with the added advantage of governments who are more heavy-handed in assisting their nation's corporations.
So if there is an "empire", it is not an American one. It is a capatalist one.
Joe:
Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da (skipping entry 1)
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
from m-w.com
I am sure that can be (and is, by me) considered propaganda.
When you open a piece with that kind of blatant *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***, don't expect too many serious thinking folks to read any further...and the retoric never gets any better in that article, although they do provide some links at the bottom.
The article says nothing about an American Empire, however. Just war profiteering.
Back to subject...the US has a type of financial empire, but it is certainly not controlled by the government. This type of empire comes from our free(er) market economy and capatalistic approach. This type of system is not exclusive to the US, it is not enforced militarily (as the British Empire was), and I certainly do not see the system collapsing anytime soon.
Of course, the US government does support American business, it has and will for all time, in all likelihood. It does so mainly through tariffs (rare) and occasional trade sanctions against unfair competitors. It does not take a heavy handed approach to "enforcing" the American economic empire.
The "Empire" is probably unassailable from an economic standpoint. However, anyone can join it. Companies from all over the world benefit from the American system, often with the added advantage of governments who are more heavy-handed in assisting their nation's corporations.
So if there is an "empire", it is not an American one. It is a capatalist one.
Joe:
Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da (skipping entry 1)
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
from m-w.com
I am sure that can be (and is, by me) considered propaganda.
QUOTE
It does so mainly through tariffs (rare) and occasional trade sanctions against unfair competitors. It does not take a heavy handed approach to "enforcing" the American economic empire.
I know some people, mainly the WTO, The Canadian Association of Wheat Farmers, and the Ministry of Natural Resources (Canada) that would largely disagree with you. The U.S. farm subsidies (announced last year) are in gross violation of the principles and specifics of NAFTA and serve one purpose, to lower the price of American goods to eliminate competition from other sources that can provide at a better cost. The same is true of the "punitive tarrifs" that have been applied to Canadian lumber imports. The U.S. imposes tarriffs like this on a regular basis, and frequently has them declared illegal by the WTO.
This is from an American Company on the issue:
QUOTE
Weyerhauser, the world's largest wood-products company, said it is weighing all its options in response to a possible 35% tariff on imports of Canadian lumber.
"The decision to impose duties is based on deeply flawed trade law and the extreme demands of a protectionist special interest group of some US lumber producers," said Weyerhauser executive William Corbin.
"The decision to impose duties is based on deeply flawed trade law and the extreme demands of a protectionist special interest group of some US lumber producers," said Weyerhauser executive William Corbin.
From the BBC
US decides Canadian Lumber is a threat to US industry
This argument, of course, is difficult to settle. However, the US is going to side with its companies (naturally), and impose the tariffs. Canadians will respond that they are too high...ad infinitum.
Specific instances, aside, the US has a very loose tariff system, that encourages imports. The US trade deficit is at around $350 billion per year (estimated). Obviously, its tariffs are pretty much a non-issue.
This argument, of course, is difficult to settle. However, the US is going to side with its companies (naturally), and impose the tariffs. Canadians will respond that they are too high...ad infinitum.
Specific instances, aside, the US has a very loose tariff system, that encourages imports. The US trade deficit is at around $350 billion per year (estimated). Obviously, its tariffs are pretty much a non-issue.
Not to the 40,000 or so workers in Canada that have lost or will lose their job over these specific tariffs.
Can you by any chance explain to me how specific examples that clearly defeat your argument are not relevant when compared to generalities?
Can you by any chance explain to me how specific examples that clearly defeat your argument are not relevant when compared to generalities?
QUOTE
Not to the 40,000 or so workers in Canada that have lost or will lose their job over these specific tariffs.
Can you by any chance explain to me how specific examples that clearly defeat your argument are not relevant when compared to generalities?
Can you by any chance explain to me how specific examples that clearly defeat your argument are not relevant when compared to generalities?
No issue is simple...
Will this hurt Canadian lumber industry...YES
Will this help the US lumber industry...YES
Will this cost home builders (in the US) more money...YES
Will it help the US in the long run....who knows.
Some people claim that the industry in Canada is subsidized. Canadians deny this...in a round-about way. I don't know what is true, and (I am guessing here) neither do you.
Trade policy is ABOUT generalities, not specific instances.
This thread isn't about the lumber industry, its about the "New American Empire". Free trade was a plank in GWB's campaign. But sometimes, tariffs are needed to protect industries from unfair practices (or percieved unfair practices).
My argument is that a country who did everything to protect its corporations from international competitors would not be so "free trade".
My "generality" spoke to the issue. Your specific example did not.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Mar 31 2003, 05:33 AM)
There was no propoganda in that paragraph, just a lot of hyperbole.
I will accept the amendment to "hyperbole" instead of "propaganda" -- though the distinction is perhaps too suble for most of us when the hyperbole is used for propaganda purposes.
America doesn't have an empire. Even if it did, it is not in danger of collapsing.
Why? Because too many foreign companies own, or have a large stake in, many American business's. It might suprise you to know how many companies that you thought were American owned, are actually owned by someone else overseas.
With that, should American become in danger of collapsing, it will get foreign aid dumped into it to keep it alive
**********************************
Brittish empire: They ruled other countries, ran them, and enforced their laws upon them. Colonized.
American empire: Consists of military bases spread around the globe. Contracted with the host gov't. After all these years, we still only have 50 states (no new colonies) etc etc.
Big difference
--cheers
Why? Because too many foreign companies own, or have a large stake in, many American business's. It might suprise you to know how many companies that you thought were American owned, are actually owned by someone else overseas.
With that, should American become in danger of collapsing, it will get foreign aid dumped into it to keep it alive
**********************************
Brittish empire: They ruled other countries, ran them, and enforced their laws upon them. Colonized.
American empire: Consists of military bases spread around the globe. Contracted with the host gov't. After all these years, we still only have 50 states (no new colonies) etc etc.
Big difference
--cheers
Is there really such a difference though?
America exerts its influence in one way and the British exerted it another, true there is a difference but thats just fashion. Back in the day, it was the in thing for nations to colonise other nations to dominate the worlds trade.
Today its fashionable to do it by means of contracts, mutual agreements and defence organisations.
The end result is the same. A lot of people around the world complaining about being told what to do and think.
What is it to them what Americans call themselves?
America exerts its influence in one way and the British exerted it another, true there is a difference but thats just fashion. Back in the day, it was the in thing for nations to colonise other nations to dominate the worlds trade.
Today its fashionable to do it by means of contracts, mutual agreements and defence organisations.
The end result is the same. A lot of people around the world complaining about being told what to do and think.
What is it to them what Americans call themselves?
I think the difference is choice. The empires of old did not give a choice to the people it conquered or occupied. Americans give a choice. We do not force any one to comply with our wants or needs economically or militarily. (And the Iraq war is not an example of the opposite, it is enforcement albeit not a popular or a total agreed upon enforcement it is still an enforcement of many rules and desires of the world community by 12 resolutions.) If a country (government) doesn’t want us in their country we leave. If a foreign corporation doesn’t want to do business with us that’s their decision, if an American business chooses not to do business with a foreign company/government that is also its right. The consequences will sort out weather it is a good decision or not.
It is not our fault that when we go into a country or decide to trade with them they choose to do so for their benefit. Yet, to blame the U.S. for reserving that right and acting on that right not to trade with any country they then call “foul” or “that’s not fair.” If a country (such as Turkey) who decides not to do what the U.S. asks, or requests we do not go in and force them to comply. Now, with every choice comes consequences, such is the case with French products being boycotted in the U.S. because of their stance against us in the Iraq war. The U.S. government did not mandate this boycott. The people of the U. S. have by their choice.
The U.S. is very much an empire, but a totally different empire than this world has ever seen or known. We make choices to better ourselves and our nation as a whole, be it corporate or government, other countries are free to do the same. That is the difference, and that is why ultimately, the U.S. will be known as the greatest “empire” with out the history behind it like the empires of old have.
Choice
It is not our fault that when we go into a country or decide to trade with them they choose to do so for their benefit. Yet, to blame the U.S. for reserving that right and acting on that right not to trade with any country they then call “foul” or “that’s not fair.” If a country (such as Turkey) who decides not to do what the U.S. asks, or requests we do not go in and force them to comply. Now, with every choice comes consequences, such is the case with French products being boycotted in the U.S. because of their stance against us in the Iraq war. The U.S. government did not mandate this boycott. The people of the U. S. have by their choice.
The U.S. is very much an empire, but a totally different empire than this world has ever seen or known. We make choices to better ourselves and our nation as a whole, be it corporate or government, other countries are free to do the same. That is the difference, and that is why ultimately, the U.S. will be known as the greatest “empire” with out the history behind it like the empires of old have.
Choice
QUOTE(moif @ Apr 1 2003, 06:34 PM)
A lot of people around the world complaining about being told what to do and think.
No one is telling anyone what to do or what to think. Especially not America(ns). I agreed with much of what you said up until that point.
When we occupy your parliment, palace, throne or congress...THEN you can complain about what America tells you to do. Otherwise, your blaming the wrong people. Our military bases don't rule the country they're located in.
Oh, and as for the difference between Brittish and American empires is fashion...ask yourself:
Q: Did the quality of life increase or decrease after the Brits took over a territory?
Q: Did the quality of life increase or decrease when America kicked the Taliban outta afg?
I don't consider human rights fashion... but thats just me
--cheers
QUOTE(Digital Patriot @ Apr 3 2003, 09:14 PM)
QUOTE(moif @ Apr 1 2003, 06:34 PM)
A lot of people around the world complaining about being told what to do and think.
No one is telling anyone what to do or what to think. Especially not America(ns). I agreed with much of what you said up until that point.
When we occupy your parliment, palace, throne or congress...THEN you can complain about what America tells you to do. Otherwise, your blaming the wrong people. Our military bases don't rule the country they're located in.
Oh, and as for the difference between Brittish and American empires is fashion...ask yourself:
Q: Did the quality of life increase or decrease after the Brits took over a territory?
Q: Did the quality of life increase or decrease when America kicked the Taliban outta afg?
I don't consider human rights fashion... but thats just me
--cheers
Has the quality of life improved appreciably in Afghanistan? Maybe in Kabul and Khandahar it has, but in rural areas I've seen no indications that things are better now.
Did the standard of living improve in British territories? It improved in Canada and India to say the least. But it really is a dumb comparison because England colonized many areas that were largely uninhabited and subjugated any indigenous populations. The U.S. is exerting it's control over established modern populations; something that has never really happened in colonial expansion.
But lets run with your silly comparison for a second:
1. It depends on the territory. Some yes, some no.
2. As I said before, in some areas yes, in some no. It's hard to say.
Did life improve in Hawaii after it was annexed? I'm sure it did for the white colonists. I can't imagine the indigenous population being too thrilled. If human rights are such a concern to you then you would be vehemently opposed to camp X-Ray and "Shock and Awe" strategies because they apply to EVERYONE. Unless of course you don't think that Human Rights apply to EVERYONE... which is wrong.
if you dont think that the u.s is an "empire" then that scares me, most all of the war in the past hundread years found all countries with interests involved, like the u.s vs the former u.s.s.r in afganistan with cia trained afgans that used u.s arsenel to fight the u.s.s.r or the scorched earth policy in south america again with the cia to combat communists.
I dont know how england rates along with the u.s in this category, I know that they seem to work with the u.s so far, I think that the u.n does not exist anymore and that the u.s and the u.k seem to be a power. The world seems to have become a scary place again.
I dont know how england rates along with the u.s in this category, I know that they seem to work with the u.s so far, I think that the u.n does not exist anymore and that the u.s and the u.k seem to be a power. The world seems to have become a scary place again.
QUOTE
No one is telling anyone what to do or what to think. Especially not America(ns). I agreed with much of what you said up until that point.
Well, I wasn't expressing my own opinion either. If you reread what I wrote, you'll see that I was refering to a large proportion of the world. My own opinion is very different...
QUOTE
When we occupy your parliment, palace, throne or congress...THEN you can complain about what America tells you to do. Otherwise, your blaming the wrong people. Our military bases don't rule the country they're located in.
Well, lets just look past the fact that I didn't complain or blame any one, and look at what it means to exert power.
My opinion is, that no matter how you do it, whether you execute a pre emptive strike or withhold an economic aid packet, protect your own steel industry/ agricultural sector/ weapons manufacturers or simply just hold a speech, if your bigger and stronger than the people across the table then your excersizing power. You don't actually need to spend a lot of resources in holding down the population with a large, expensive military...
QUOTE
Oh, and as for the difference between Brittish and American empires is fashion...ask yourself:
Q: Did the quality of life increase or decrease after the Brits took over a territory?
Q: Did the quality of life increase or decrease when America kicked the Taliban outta afg?
I don't consider human rights fashion... but thats just me
Q: Did the quality of life increase or decrease after the Brits took over a territory?
Q: Did the quality of life increase or decrease when America kicked the Taliban outta afg?
I don't consider human rights fashion... but thats just me
I wasn't talking about human rights either.
QUOTE(moif @ Apr 4 2003, 12:51 AM)
Well, lets just look past the fact that I didn't complain or blame any one, and look at what it means to exert power.
My opinion is, that no matter how you do it, whether you execute a pre emptive strike or withhold an economic aid packet, protect your own steel industry/ agricultural sector/ weapons manufacturers or simply just hold a speech, if your bigger and stronger than the people across the table then your excersizing power. You don't actually need to spend a lot of resources in holding down the population with a large, expensive military...
My opinion is, that no matter how you do it, whether you execute a pre emptive strike or withhold an economic aid packet, protect your own steel industry/ agricultural sector/ weapons manufacturers or simply just hold a speech, if your bigger and stronger than the people across the table then your excersizing power. You don't actually need to spend a lot of resources in holding down the population with a large, expensive military...
So what would you have us do, Moif? Should we accede to the desires of another nation simply because we are more powerful than they are? Should we ask for example, Turkey for staging rights and when they say, "no" just go ahead and say, "ok, here's $30 Billion, go knock yourselves out." That what we should do, Moif? Should we give up our sovereignty and allow France, China or Russia to determine our foreign policy? We should do this so they'll like us better? Perhaps you think we should stand by while Saddam Hussein brutalizes his people, rapes women as punishment and kills their children in front of them all so that France, Germany and Russia can sell billions of dollars of military equipment to that tyrant in violation of the UN sanctions. Is that the price you would have us pay, Moif, to prevent you from claiming we are building an empire? Sorry dude, it's too high.
I'm curious. Immediately after Bush came into office did you start demanding that the U.S. government move into Iraq and save all those poor Iraqis?
Nobody is suggesting this. Go build your straw-man elsewhere. The U.S. government CHOSE its current course of action. It could have CHOSEN to avoid war and didn't. The Countries that are against war merely tried to convince the U.S. that it was a bad idea, then decided not to support it. How does this entail determining U.S. foreign policy?
QUOTE
Should we give up our sovereignty and allow France, China or Russia to determine our foreign policy?
Nobody is suggesting this. Go build your straw-man elsewhere. The U.S. government CHOSE its current course of action. It could have CHOSEN to avoid war and didn't. The Countries that are against war merely tried to convince the U.S. that it was a bad idea, then decided not to support it. How does this entail determining U.S. foreign policy?
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Apr 4 2003, 03:13 AM)
I'm curious. Immediately after Bush came into office did you start demanding that the U.S. government move into Iraq and save all those poor Iraqis?
Actually, I was calling for that long before President Bush was elected, as I will add, was President Clinton in 1998. Don't try and turn this into a partisan issue, it's not.
As far as the "strawman" allegation is concerned, I would suggest that you re-read and consider the comments made in the context of the title of the thread. Moif seems to have a problem with US foreign policy simply because when we are dealing with other nations, we are dealing from a postion of power. This fact, and it is true, we are more powerful than any other nation, seems to imply to Moif that we are thus proven to be some sort of 21st century empire.
I would ask you to consider whether or not the US, being the most powerful nation on the face of the earth is, because of it's power, denied the right to conduct it's own foreign policy.
Thanks for explaining. Of course I understood what you were trying to say before that nice elucidation... And my straw-man "accusation" I still think is valid. Nobody has suggested that America subjugate its foreign policy purely to international concerns and you have structure the argument in that fashion when you said:
There is a big difference between power and authority. Nobody would assume the U.S. has power. Who gave it the AUTHORITY to act unilaterally in a world of inter-penetrations?
QUOTE
Should we give up our sovereignty and allow France, China or Russia to determine our foreign policy?
There is a big difference between power and authority. Nobody would assume the U.S. has power. Who gave it the AUTHORITY to act unilaterally in a world of inter-penetrations?
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Apr 4 2003, 06:26 AM)
There is a big difference between power and authority. Nobody would assume the U.S. has power. Who gave it the AUTHORITY to act unilaterally in a world of inter-penetrations?
The authority for the US to act "unilaterally", which by the way it hasn't in regards to the conflict in Iraq, is derived from the Constitution of the United States. There is no higher authority than that as far as the US is concerned. There are some who might suggest that the US is bound to decisions of the UN by virtue of signing into the UN charter, but I assure you that is not the case and there are ample Supreme Court decisions to prove that.
That is not an "empire" but rather a soveriegn nation acting in accordance with it's laws.
Aquilla
As I already said once; Well, lets just look past the fact that I didn't complain or blame any one...
If YOU reread my post Aquilla, and look beyond your own preconception of my argument, then you will find that what I am saying is NOT a condemnation of US foreign policy. I am simply stating my opinion as to the nature of power.
How the United States decides to use its power is not the topic at hand, what we are discussing is the nature of its power, and any similarities between the British Empire and the United States.
As I've already said, I do not believe the USA is an empire in the traditional sense of that word, but I do look upon its power as being much the same. The differences between the examples is only a matter of form, essentially I see both as the same thing. So for me, whether America is an empire or a single nation exerting real power over nations with no real regard to their internal politics, makes no difference.
And I don't accept the validity of the argument that America is acting within the legal boundaries of its constitution. US Foreign policy by its nature takes place outside the USA, and the American constitution has no jurisdiction beyond America's borders.
You might just as well say that we (USA) have given ourselves a carte blanche to do as we will in the rest of the world, and our true authority is our military and economic strength.
Personally I can't really see how that differs from the British Empire...
QUOTE
So what would you have us do, Moif? Should we accede to the desires of another nation simply because we are more powerful than they are? Should we ask for example, Turkey for staging rights and when they say, "no" just go ahead and say, "ok, here's $30 Billion, go knock yourselves out." That what we should do, Moif? Should we give up our sovereignty and allow France, China or Russia to determine our foreign policy? We should do this so they'll like us better? Perhaps you think we should stand by while Saddam Hussein brutalizes his people, rapes women as punishment and kills their children in front of them all so that France, Germany and Russia can sell billions of dollars of military equipment to that tyrant in violation of the UN sanctions. Is that the price you would have us pay, Moif, to prevent you from claiming we are building an empire? Sorry dude, it's too high.
As I already said once; Well, lets just look past the fact that I didn't complain or blame any one...
If YOU reread my post Aquilla, and look beyond your own preconception of my argument, then you will find that what I am saying is NOT a condemnation of US foreign policy. I am simply stating my opinion as to the nature of power.
How the United States decides to use its power is not the topic at hand, what we are discussing is the nature of its power, and any similarities between the British Empire and the United States.
As I've already said, I do not believe the USA is an empire in the traditional sense of that word, but I do look upon its power as being much the same. The differences between the examples is only a matter of form, essentially I see both as the same thing. So for me, whether America is an empire or a single nation exerting real power over nations with no real regard to their internal politics, makes no difference.
And I don't accept the validity of the argument that America is acting within the legal boundaries of its constitution. US Foreign policy by its nature takes place outside the USA, and the American constitution has no jurisdiction beyond America's borders.
You might just as well say that we (USA) have given ourselves a carte blanche to do as we will in the rest of the world, and our true authority is our military and economic strength.
Personally I can't really see how that differs from the British Empire...
This debate will best be settled by how the US handles post-war Iraq. I think it will be very difficult to hide any empire-building motives, if they exist. For the time being I'm willing to accept the US motives as they have been stated by the administration.
As Colin Powell said very recently, "when engaged in a battle on foreign soil, the United States has never asked for more than enough land to lay to rest the brave young men who didn't make it back home".
As Colin Powell said very recently, "when engaged in a battle on foreign soil, the United States has never asked for more than enough land to lay to rest the brave young men who didn't make it back home".
Please bear with me and my scrap book for a moment...
Perhaps somebody should have mentioned all this about choice to democratically elected President Arbenz (1950's) of Guatemala. We could at least tell him the bit about the military not enforcing our system abroad like the British Empire... but I'm not sure he'd buy much of it; especially considering the CIA ousted him from power because he...
Foreign Policy(middle of page)
HERE is another link that mentions the incident in Guatemala. It also takes a look at the CIA and the Pinochet coup in Chile..
Just skipping around the web I've also found this little bit which mentions the Philippines as well as Guatemala and others:
It also goes on to include the Congo, South Vietnam, Indonesia and Chile. Afghanistan is mentioned as well, but there were additional circumstances supporting that military action.
At any rate, it appears to me there were quite a few people who didn't get a choice (slowtime9). It also seems the military was used quite frequently to enforce our system (amlord). Yes, soveriegn nations are allowed to conduct their own foreign policies (Aquilla) and I don't think anybody here is really disputing that. Rather, we are simply pointing out that the manner in which a country conducts its foriegn policy may lead to its labeling as an empire. Maybe we invited Mr. Arbenz and the others to play along with our little game at first. Unfortunately, they didn't... they had some radical notion that they should try to reform and improve their countries. Our actions against them and the ideas they had indicates to me that we didn't particularly care to have them think for themselves (Digital Patriot).
Just my 2 cents, though...
QUOTE(amlord)
...the US has a type of financial empire, but it is certainly not controlled by the government. This type of empire comes from our free(er) market economy and capatalistic approach. This type of system is not exclusive to the US, it is not enforced militarily (as the British Empire was), and I certainly do not see the system collapsing anytime soon.
Of course, the US government does support American business, it has and will for all time, in all likelihood. It does so mainly through tariffs (rare) and occasional trade sanctions against unfair competitors. It does not take a heavy handed approach to "enforcing" the American economic empire.
Of course, the US government does support American business, it has and will for all time, in all likelihood. It does so mainly through tariffs (rare) and occasional trade sanctions against unfair competitors. It does not take a heavy handed approach to "enforcing" the American economic empire.
QUOTE(slowtime9)
I think the difference is choice. The empires of old did not give a choice to the people it conquered or occupied. Americans give a choice. We do not force any one to comply with our wants or needs economically or militarily... If a foreign corporation doesn’t want to do business with us that’s their decision, if an American business chooses not to do business with a foreign company/government that is also its right. The consequences will sort out weather it is a good decision or not.
QUOTE(Digital Patriot)
No one is telling anyone what to do or what to think. Especially not America(ns). I agreed with much of what you said up until that point.
QUOTE(Aquilla)
Moif seems to have a problem with US foreign policy simply because when we are dealing with other nations, we are dealing from a postion of power. This fact, and it is true, we are more powerful than any other nation, seems to imply to Moif that we are thus proven to be some sort of 21st century empire.
I would ask you to consider whether or not the US, being the most powerful nation on the face of the earth is, because of it's power, denied the right to conduct it's own foreign policy.
[Edited: below excerpt from a separate post...]
That is not an "empire" but rather a soveriegn nation acting in accordance with it's laws.
I would ask you to consider whether or not the US, being the most powerful nation on the face of the earth is, because of it's power, denied the right to conduct it's own foreign policy.
[Edited: below excerpt from a separate post...]
That is not an "empire" but rather a soveriegn nation acting in accordance with it's laws.
Perhaps somebody should have mentioned all this about choice to democratically elected President Arbenz (1950's) of Guatemala. We could at least tell him the bit about the military not enforcing our system abroad like the British Empire... but I'm not sure he'd buy much of it; especially considering the CIA ousted him from power because he...
QUOTE
had ordered the expropriation of some of United Fruit's unused land, which he gave to 100,000 Guatemalan families. Ar,valo paid the company what he thought was a fair price; one based on the United Fruit Company's own evaluation of the land for tax purposes.
Foreign Policy(middle of page)
HERE is another link that mentions the incident in Guatemala. It also takes a look at the CIA and the Pinochet coup in Chile..
Just skipping around the web I've also found this little bit which mentions the Philippines as well as Guatemala and others:
QUOTE
Just over 100 years ago, in February 1898, a U.S. battleship, the Maine , blew up in Havana harbor. This gave the U.S. a casus belli (a pretext) for a war they had long been planning. The U.S. Navy attacked in Spain's richest colonies. U.S. troops quickly defeated Spain and occupied Cuba and Puerto Rico. They swore they had come as "liberators." After all, they reminded everyone, the U.S. had been created by the first modern revolution waged by colonies against a monarchical power.
The U.S. said colonial people could not free themselves, and it was the job of the U.S. to help its "little brown brothers."
Filipino revolutionaries drove the Spanish army out of most of the Philippine Islands. The U.S. betrayed them. President McKinley claimed god personally told him that the Filipino people "are unfit for self-government." He added, "There was nothing left for us to do but to take them all and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them."
How quickly the argument turns from "the Philippine people can't free themselves" to "they can't govern themselves"!
In February 1899, the Filipino people rose in revolt against American occupation. The U.S. poured half its armed forces into the Philippines for three years to suppress the rebellion.
From Mark Twain's sharp pen: "We have pacified some thousands of islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining tens of millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket...and hoisted our protecting flag."
.....
Iran, 1953 --A large-scale CIA operation led to the overthrow of the elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who had nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. In his place, the U.S. installed the vicious Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. With massive U.S. backing, the Shah used naked police terror and torture to dominate the Iranian people, and loyally served U.S. strategic and economic interests in the region for 26 years. He crushed revolutionary forces in Oman, Dhofar and within Iran itself.
Guatemala, 1954 --A CIA-supported coup (named "Operation Success") produced the overthrow of the popular elected government of President Jacobo Arbenz, who had angered the U.S. by carrying out land reform that transferred some corporate land to farmers. The regime change installed Col. Carlos Castillo Armas, and an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 people died or disappeared under the following U.S.-backed "strongmen" who came to power. Guatmala remained a country heavily dominated by U.S. corporations like United Fruit.
The U.S. said colonial people could not free themselves, and it was the job of the U.S. to help its "little brown brothers."
Filipino revolutionaries drove the Spanish army out of most of the Philippine Islands. The U.S. betrayed them. President McKinley claimed god personally told him that the Filipino people "are unfit for self-government." He added, "There was nothing left for us to do but to take them all and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them."
How quickly the argument turns from "the Philippine people can't free themselves" to "they can't govern themselves"!
In February 1899, the Filipino people rose in revolt against American occupation. The U.S. poured half its armed forces into the Philippines for three years to suppress the rebellion.
From Mark Twain's sharp pen: "We have pacified some thousands of islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining tens of millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket...and hoisted our protecting flag."
.....
Iran, 1953 --A large-scale CIA operation led to the overthrow of the elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who had nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. In his place, the U.S. installed the vicious Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. With massive U.S. backing, the Shah used naked police terror and torture to dominate the Iranian people, and loyally served U.S. strategic and economic interests in the region for 26 years. He crushed revolutionary forces in Oman, Dhofar and within Iran itself.
Guatemala, 1954 --A CIA-supported coup (named "Operation Success") produced the overthrow of the popular elected government of President Jacobo Arbenz, who had angered the U.S. by carrying out land reform that transferred some corporate land to farmers. The regime change installed Col. Carlos Castillo Armas, and an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 people died or disappeared under the following U.S.-backed "strongmen" who came to power. Guatmala remained a country heavily dominated by U.S. corporations like United Fruit.
It also goes on to include the Congo, South Vietnam, Indonesia and Chile. Afghanistan is mentioned as well, but there were additional circumstances supporting that military action.
At any rate, it appears to me there were quite a few people who didn't get a choice (slowtime9). It also seems the military was used quite frequently to enforce our system (amlord). Yes, soveriegn nations are allowed to conduct their own foreign policies (Aquilla) and I don't think anybody here is really disputing that. Rather, we are simply pointing out that the manner in which a country conducts its foriegn policy may lead to its labeling as an empire. Maybe we invited Mr. Arbenz and the others to play along with our little game at first. Unfortunately, they didn't... they had some radical notion that they should try to reform and improve their countries. Our actions against them and the ideas they had indicates to me that we didn't particularly care to have them think for themselves (Digital Patriot).
Just my 2 cents, though...
So 10 instances (or so) over a 100 year period, each by different administrations, for different reasons.
OK, I guess I will bite...how does this indicate "Empire"?
We may use our military, sometimes way too much, but that, in and of itself does not indicate "Empire".
If we were in such control, why was the Shah deposed in Iran, contrary to US wishes?
I have never argued that the US does not use its military power, and unfortunately its been too much about foreign policy and not about defense (such as in these instances). I must be honest that I don't know the specifics of each of these cases.
But we have divested from the Phillipines, agreed to give the Panama Canal to Panama, withdrew the bulk of our forces following the first Gulf War. I would say that these are not the actions of a country setting up an "Empire".
Many of these incidents occured during the Cold War, where US policy was to contain the spread of communism. As I said, I don't know the specifics of each instance, but you need to keep historical context when you cite these things.
OK, I guess I will bite...how does this indicate "Empire"?
We may use our military, sometimes way too much, but that, in and of itself does not indicate "Empire".
If we were in such control, why was the Shah deposed in Iran, contrary to US wishes?
I have never argued that the US does not use its military power, and unfortunately its been too much about foreign policy and not about defense (such as in these instances). I must be honest that I don't know the specifics of each of these cases.
But we have divested from the Phillipines, agreed to give the Panama Canal to Panama, withdrew the bulk of our forces following the first Gulf War. I would say that these are not the actions of a country setting up an "Empire".
Many of these incidents occured during the Cold War, where US policy was to contain the spread of communism. As I said, I don't know the specifics of each instance, but you need to keep historical context when you cite these things.
QUOTE
But we have divested from the Phillipines, agreed to give the Panama Canal to Panama, withdrew the bulk of our forces following the first Gulf War. I would say that these are not the actions of a country setting up an "Empire".
Actually the "war on terror" has given us even more reason to remain involved in the Philippines. We've sent ever more troops under this administration. And you say that we withdrew the bulk of our forces following the Gulf War... but you and I have talked about this on another thread. A quick reminder:
QUOTE
In the decade after the war, the United States sold more than $43 billion worth of weapons, equipment and military construction projects to Saudi Arabia and $16 billion more to Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, according to data compiled by the Federation of American Scientists. Before Operation Desert Storm, the U.S. military enjoyed the right to stockpile, or "pre-position," military supplies only in the comparitavely remote Gulf state of Oman on the Indian Ocean. After the war, nearly every country in the region began conducting joint military exercises, hosting U.S. naval units and Air Force squadrons, and granting the United States pre-positioning rights. "Our military presence in the Middle East has increased dramatically," then-Defense Secretary William Cohen boasted in 1995.
Taking this into account, if you say that "divesting ourselves from the Philippines and withdrawing the bulk of our forces" doesn't constitute an empire (even in a loose sense), what about when we are -- in fact -- increasing our forces in both these regions and beyond?
QUOTE
Many of these incidents occured during the Cold War, where US policy was to contain the spread of communism. As I said, I don't know the specifics of each instance, but you need to keep historical context when you cite these things.
The "war on terrorism" is our new Cold War. We're still positioning ourselves strategically all over the world regardless of whether there are serious threats to national security or not. The difference now, however, is terrorism isn't likely to disappear like the specter of Communism did.
A relevant article: http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0.../29bookman.html
If the thesis is correct, the analogy is not so much to the British Empire as the Roman, and the comparison is intentional.
If the thesis is correct, the analogy is not so much to the British Empire as the Roman, and the comparison is intentional.
Good article, Izdaari
I can't even remember today in what threads and how many times I have mentioned the think-tank Project for a New American Century, and how it pertains to the notion of an American empire. So, to change the beat a little, I've expanded on over to the American Enterprise Institute...
Brave New World: An Enduring Pax Americana
My other issues aside, The American Enterprise Institute is another Washington think-tank with close ties to the Bush administration (Bush speaks at AEI). Some excerpts:
Beyond Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld having direct ties to the PNAC think-tank, Cheney's wife and some presidential advisers also have direct ties with AEI. While it's admittedly speculative, I would also point to the speech Bush gave to AEI shortly before the war (February)... a speech in which Bush said, "Part of that history was written by others; the rest will be written by us."
Now, as Izdaari pointed out, this is a stronger comparison to the Roman Empire than the British Empire... especially if you make the comparison between Pax Romana and this idea of a Pax Americana. In case anybody isn't familiar with this bit of history, HERE is a quick summary courtesy of PBS (essentially the first couple paragraphs) .
Again, good article Izdaari... and hopefully this will also be helpful for this argument and others.
I can't even remember today in what threads and how many times I have mentioned the think-tank Project for a New American Century, and how it pertains to the notion of an American empire. So, to change the beat a little, I've expanded on over to the American Enterprise Institute...
Brave New World: An Enduring Pax Americana
My other issues aside, The American Enterprise Institute is another Washington think-tank with close ties to the Bush administration (Bush speaks at AEI). Some excerpts:
QUOTE
The diplomatic maneuvering preceding war in Iraq marks the unambiguous end of the post-cold-war world. No one can say with absolute certainty how the "post-Iraq world" will be ordered, but the fundamental contradiction of the period between 1989 and 2003--the disparity between the reality of American global primacy and the formally multipolar structure of various international institutions, most notably the United Nations and NATO--has been exposed for the sham that it has been. Ironically, the French have done us a favor by forcing the world to confront the facts of the case.
.....
Having become a test of American power and purpose in the world, war in Iraq will have consequences not simply for Saddam and his regime, or the Iraqi people, or the security balance in the Persian Gulf. A U.S. victory--measured also by the planting of the seeds of liberty and democracy in Baghdad--will define the start of a truly new world order; to steal Dean Acheson's famous phrase, we are present at the creation. What, exactly, we are creating we do not know. It will be necessary to create international institutions that reflect the new realities, and they may even be called the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. But if so, those organizations will have to be fundamentally transformed to reestablish the link between the right to make international law and the responsibility to enforce it.
In fact, the world that is now suffering its birth pangs in the skies over Iraq and on the ground there is even more likely than the one it grew out of to be a unipolar world, marked by an even greater degree of American primacy and leadership than before. It may further accelerate the stunning spread of democracy and political liberty that has occurred since the collapse of the Soviet empire. We appear to be moving at last from the post-cold-war era--a time defined negatively by what it is not--to the time of an enduring Pax Americana.
.....
Having become a test of American power and purpose in the world, war in Iraq will have consequences not simply for Saddam and his regime, or the Iraqi people, or the security balance in the Persian Gulf. A U.S. victory--measured also by the planting of the seeds of liberty and democracy in Baghdad--will define the start of a truly new world order; to steal Dean Acheson's famous phrase, we are present at the creation. What, exactly, we are creating we do not know. It will be necessary to create international institutions that reflect the new realities, and they may even be called the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. But if so, those organizations will have to be fundamentally transformed to reestablish the link between the right to make international law and the responsibility to enforce it.
In fact, the world that is now suffering its birth pangs in the skies over Iraq and on the ground there is even more likely than the one it grew out of to be a unipolar world, marked by an even greater degree of American primacy and leadership than before. It may further accelerate the stunning spread of democracy and political liberty that has occurred since the collapse of the Soviet empire. We appear to be moving at last from the post-cold-war era--a time defined negatively by what it is not--to the time of an enduring Pax Americana.
Beyond Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld having direct ties to the PNAC think-tank, Cheney's wife and some presidential advisers also have direct ties with AEI. While it's admittedly speculative, I would also point to the speech Bush gave to AEI shortly before the war (February)... a speech in which Bush said, "Part of that history was written by others; the rest will be written by us."
Now, as Izdaari pointed out, this is a stronger comparison to the Roman Empire than the British Empire... especially if you make the comparison between Pax Romana and this idea of a Pax Americana. In case anybody isn't familiar with this bit of history, HERE is a quick summary courtesy of PBS (essentially the first couple paragraphs) .
Again, good article Izdaari... and hopefully this will also be helpful for this argument and others.
QUOTE(Bookman @ AJC editorial linked above)
Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?
If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.
That's what this is about.
If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.
That's what this is about.
As Bookman says in concluding his editorial, there are some serious issues to debate here. The neocons have a pretty strong case, and most of the answers I've heard to it so far are not sufficient.
Did it work for Rome...?
It makes sense [Edit: as a theory] that if you bend every nation and person to your will that you should have no enemies and thus peace in your country. But it always seems to leave out how people will feel having the will of a foreign nation imposed upon them.
Might it work for at least a short while? Sure. But once things go sour and the world wishes to have their sovereignity back, exactly how severe will the backlash be? What kind of animosity will the Pax Americana have to cope with until such time?
I just have a hard time seeing how it's a promotion of freedom when the only freedom being offered is the freedom to do what America says. For all I know, it might just be me. But I'm thinking some of those nations that would be swept under the shadow of the American Empire might come to ponder that notion as well...
As long as America or any other international power wants to indulge in power trips and *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** contests, there won't be any global peace or "Pax Americana" -- just the misguided, egotistical dream of one.
It makes sense [Edit: as a theory] that if you bend every nation and person to your will that you should have no enemies and thus peace in your country. But it always seems to leave out how people will feel having the will of a foreign nation imposed upon them.
Might it work for at least a short while? Sure. But once things go sour and the world wishes to have their sovereignity back, exactly how severe will the backlash be? What kind of animosity will the Pax Americana have to cope with until such time?
I just have a hard time seeing how it's a promotion of freedom when the only freedom being offered is the freedom to do what America says. For all I know, it might just be me. But I'm thinking some of those nations that would be swept under the shadow of the American Empire might come to ponder that notion as well...
As long as America or any other international power wants to indulge in power trips and *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** contests, there won't be any global peace or "Pax Americana" -- just the misguided, egotistical dream of one.
Abs...
All I know is, that since September 11th, I've lost my faith in the UN, in NATO and in America. Thus far, I've always voted ambiguously with regards to the EU, but from now on I shall be voting YES to the Euro, to the expanded EU and to any motion which withdraws Europe from America's influence.
What was the second world war about? Or the Cold war? Why did we (Europe) bother to fight off those Empires, just so we could be annexed by another? It is obvious now, that we have no voice in Washington. Our votes do not count for anything if our politicians are powerless to prevent American foreign policy from doing what it will.
Germany opposed the war, but their nation is being used by the US military all the same.
When you have no voice. Your just a slave.
QUOTE
I just have a hard time seeing how it's a promotion of freedom when the only freedom being offered is the freedom to do what America says. For all I know, it might just be me. But I'm thinking some of those nations that would be swept under the shadow of the American Empire might come to ponder that notion as well...
All I know is, that since September 11th, I've lost my faith in the UN, in NATO and in America. Thus far, I've always voted ambiguously with regards to the EU, but from now on I shall be voting YES to the Euro, to the expanded EU and to any motion which withdraws Europe from America's influence.
What was the second world war about? Or the Cold war? Why did we (Europe) bother to fight off those Empires, just so we could be annexed by another? It is obvious now, that we have no voice in Washington. Our votes do not count for anything if our politicians are powerless to prevent American foreign policy from doing what it will.
Germany opposed the war, but their nation is being used by the US military all the same.
When you have no voice. Your just a slave.
QUOTE(moif @ Apr 6 2003, 04:13 PM)
What was the second world war about? Or the Cold war? Why did we (Europe) bother to fight off those Empires, just so we could be annexed by another? It is obvious now, that we have no voice in Washington. Our votes do not count for anything if our politicians are powerless to prevent American foreign policy from doing what it will.
Germany opposed the war, but their nation is being used by the US military all the same.
When you have no voice. Your just a slave.
Germany opposed the war, but their nation is being used by the US military all the same.
When you have no voice. Your just a slave.
Annexed? Hardly. The US hasn't conscripted citizens of France or Germany, nor of any other nation for that matter to fight for the liberation of Iraq. When the US asked Turkey, a NATO partner for permission to stage in their country, Turkey said, "No", and the US didn't do it. It seems to me that had the US 'annexed' those countries, we'd have gone ahead and landed the 4th ID in Turkey and staged from there anyway. I think Moif has turned this argument on it's head. He wants the EU to 'prevent' the US from exercising it's foreign policy and that seems to me to be the oppressive thing. Should France have a veto over US decisions? I think not, anymore than the US has the power to prevent the French from doing things we would prefer they not do. When the French refused to go along with the liberation of Iraq, the US disagreed with them, but we didn't bomb Paris. We didn't break diplomatic ties or even embargo French products imported into the US. We just went ahead and did what we thought was the right thing to do without asking for help from the French. Hardly the act of an 'empire'.
QUOTE(moif @ Apr 6 2003, 08:13 AM)
Why did we (Europe) bother to fight off those Empires, just so we could be annexed by another?
erm....huh?
annex
to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a city, country, or state: Germany annexed part of Czechoslovakia.
/me pulls out his US map of states and territories and looks around for "Denmark".
/me doesn't find it
/me scratches head
annexed? Oh I'm sorry, I guess I missed the headlines in today's paper about how the US is marching into Demark with construction crews ready to erect the capital building in our 51st state.
QUOTE
It is obvious now, that we have no voice in Washington.
No kidding. As we don't have a say in how your gov't operates. If you want a say in America, become the 51st state, or move over here and cast your ballot. lol
To get back on topic....
Wouldn't you have to define the American empire by using the word annex? Since we aren't annexing anything... are we still an empire? I dont' think so. I'm not saying that there aren't similarities... but we're not an empire
--cheers
DP
Your link also provides this explanation of the word;
1. to attach, append, or add, esp. to something larger or more important.
And that's what I feel has happened to Europe. Not just Denmark. It has become attached to US policy, without regard to the best interests of its people.
I'm not blaming the USA for this, or saying it would be any different in any way. But since my vote cannot prevent my nation from being used, just as German votes cannot prevent the US air force from using Ramstein (sp?) Air Force Base as a staging post in this war, then I would prefer to see Europe distance itself from the American military.
I feel if that if the current geo political trend continues, then what we might see, as indeed many say we already are, is indeed an American empire in much the same way as the British Empire. The Brits used to boast that the sun never set on the British empire. Considering the geography of American military installations, you could probably say the same thing about the US Army.
In the traditional sense of the world empire, then yes. But, we don't live in a traditional world any more. What I see as being considered the American empire, is an empire of influence. Let me just add that this is not my opinion. I don't believe that America is an empire yet and nor do I claim that it will ever be.
What I see today is a nation so politically heavy that it has no realistic counter weight. The argument can be made though, and I find it an interesting speculation; that if you look beyond the traditional meaning of the word empire, then you can see an extensive network of American commercial and military interests which is meshed into so many states as to give America the same power as an empire would have.
Hard power, on the ground, globally. Whether you choose to call it empire, hegemony or sphere of influence makes no real difference. The power is the same as the British wielded.
(editted to modify a sentence)
Your link also provides this explanation of the word;
1. to attach, append, or add, esp. to something larger or more important.
And that's what I feel has happened to Europe. Not just Denmark. It has become attached to US policy, without regard to the best interests of its people.
I'm not blaming the USA for this, or saying it would be any different in any way. But since my vote cannot prevent my nation from being used, just as German votes cannot prevent the US air force from using Ramstein (sp?) Air Force Base as a staging post in this war, then I would prefer to see Europe distance itself from the American military.
I feel if that if the current geo political trend continues, then what we might see, as indeed many say we already are, is indeed an American empire in much the same way as the British Empire. The Brits used to boast that the sun never set on the British empire. Considering the geography of American military installations, you could probably say the same thing about the US Army.
QUOTE
Wouldn't you have to define the American empire by using the word annex? Since we aren't annexing anything... are we still an empire? I don't' think so. I'm not saying that there aren't similarities... but we're not an empire
In the traditional sense of the world empire, then yes. But, we don't live in a traditional world any more. What I see as being considered the American empire, is an empire of influence. Let me just add that this is not my opinion. I don't believe that America is an empire yet and nor do I claim that it will ever be.
What I see today is a nation so politically heavy that it has no realistic counter weight. The argument can be made though, and I find it an interesting speculation; that if you look beyond the traditional meaning of the word empire, then you can see an extensive network of American commercial and military interests which is meshed into so many states as to give America the same power as an empire would have.
Hard power, on the ground, globally. Whether you choose to call it empire, hegemony or sphere of influence makes no real difference. The power is the same as the British wielded.
(editted to modify a sentence)
The original question is flawed, empires have colonies, America doesn't have any colonies.
CP
CP
QUOTE
The original question is flawed, empires have colonies
Yeah?
I suggest you look up the name Meyer Lansky.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.