Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As to the first, "Often" referred to, but not exclusively so.
As to the second, "control and conformity", as you yourself point out America's "spreading of liberty", we are imposing a conformity to our standards. If you don't think we control Iraq, I'd think again.
It is still a play on words. Its a Marxist style position. Thats like saying that by helping someone in need, you are imposing on them or claiming that by freeing someone from slavery, you are imposing a conformity. It makes no sense. America has acted to the call for help from others. Those countries are free to choose their own path after, we do not demand they be as such, but as long as there is an individual willing to ask for help and protest the oppression of their leaders, then we will be there to help them. That is not imperialistic in the slightest and is contrary to the core foundations of the definitions we are discussing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
Closer to home, I'd also consider the Native American Indians as being controlled, forced into conformity, and ruled by the United States government, even today.
This I may be able to agree with to an extent. It does fit this somewhat, however the tribes due to their nature could not coexist in many ways with that society. This is probably the only point I think that has merit, however it is a very complex issue with and the history related to the subject is littered with revisionist material (on both sides). In the end though, they were given their own land and are under their own law to even this day so it doesn't fully fit into the definition in this example either.
It is still a play on words. Its a Marxist style position. Thats like saying that by helping someone in need, you are imposing on them or claiming that by freeing someone from slavery, you are imposing a conformity. It makes no sense. America has acted to the call for help from others. Those countries are free to choose their own path after, we do not demand they be as such, but as long as there is an individual willing to ask for help and protest the oppression of their leaders, then we will be there to help them. That is not imperialistic in the slightest and is contrary to the core foundations of the definitions we are discussing.
I really liked the Marxist connotation, that was, well, nice.
Do you forget that the United States facilitated the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 in order to install the dictator Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi? This direct intervention of another lesser nations political structure in order to achieve one that was more in Americas interests?
Perhaps the United States facilitation of the monarchies and dictatorial Presidents in Jordan and Egypt? The direct support of these forms of government over democratic forms of government as a means to exercise its influence in preventing populist uprising, even those in the name of democracy. As has been pointed out by other posters, academics and foreign policy analyst, that if these nations held democratic styled governments, it would very likely threaten our ally Israel, as many of their populations would desire conflict with Israel. So we have the United States directly intervening in the affairs of another nation in order to facilitate an outcome that is most favorable to US interests. This is most certainly an exercise of control and influence by economic means.
Let us not forget the US economic, political and even military support of the following people in order to garnish outcomes favorable to the United States interest. The use of our influence and power to achieve aims and outcomes beneficial to US interest, often contrary to the interest of the people in these host governments.
Idi Amin, Gen. Augusto Pinochet, Manuel Noriega, Fulgencio Batista, Islam Karimov, Ngo Dinh Diem and the list goes on and on. Now did the United States "rule" these people and their nations, no of course not. Did the United States use its power and influence in order to determine the political outcomes in various nation's in order to achieve circumstances favorable to US interest, most certainly and it did so by exercising its power through economic and even forceful means to achieve these aims.
Again I point to your assertion that "rule" is the single defining characteristic of determining both the definition of empire and imperialism is simply false. This isn't just how I see it, this is how much of the academic community views its context as well, as I've cited previously but to which you continue to ignore.
What I do find most intriguing however is that you seem inclined to accept the notion of an American empire under the premise that it is benign and benevolent, but only seem to reject the notion that it could be seen in a context of imperialism.
A "benevolent" empire lets people feel good and proper by bringing our perfect system to the benighted natives and fearsome empire with a propensity to install dictators instead of democracy makes people, at least anyone with a conscience, feel guilty.
I have to admit that I favor the elimination of Sharia Law, as practiced by many Muslims, from the planet. My toleration of some cultures is limited by my concepts of freedom and decency.
A "benevolent" empire lets people feel good and proper by bringing our perfect system to the benighted natives and fearsome empire with a propensity to install dictators instead of democracy makes people, at least anyone with a conscience, feel guilty.
I have to admit that I favor the elimination of Sharia Law, as practiced by many Muslims, from the planet. My toleration of some cultures is limited by my concepts of freedom and decency.
The premise of Sharia law is abhorrent in my opinion as I see it as the regression of society through adherence to fundamentalism. However Sharia law was of no concern to the US nor its people for its entire history, it is only recently that it has come to our attention and I believe much of the indignation is related to the desire to have a cause and rationality for out presence in the Middle East in general.
We were attacked by a small group of Islamic extremist because they believe we are exerting an imperial imposition upon their culture because of their resources. Now folks can argue this, but this is their perception. In response to our intervention, these people perpetrated a horrid act of terrorism upon us on 9-11, so our response was to invade two nations wholly, and two more remotely, see Yemen and Pakistan. This reinforces their belief and when they respond to a greater presences, we then use their response as a means to justify our prior actions. We've gotten lost in the action-reaction, and contextually view history from the last attack against us while dismissing entirely the previous set of circumstances. (See Chalmers Johnson, Blow back)
One only has to open a map of the Middle East and surrounding areas to see the reasoning of why. It is no coincidence that our dependence upon a single resource, which without out it would literally collapse our entire society, happens to reside under the feet of US soldiers in occupation. Some would say they were geologically lucky and geographically challenged, but in truth, for all the horrors of the radical aspects of Islamic culture, it wouldn't mean a damn thing to us if not for oil. Americans are quite forgiving of 95% of the words brutal dictators, because they have nothing we need. If we awoke tomorrow to find vast reserves of sweet crude under Zimbabwe, then suddenly the actions of Robert Mugabe would be a concern to everyone, but this is not the case.
History is replete with examples and parallels of the US to previous empires, and while there are most certainly differences, it is those common distinguishing features that we should pay the closest attention to. That consumption drives expansion and eventually greater and greater dependence upon resources outside our nation. Another is the penchant towards militarism to secure the desired resources either directly or indirectly. Additionally there is the required economic force in order to sustain a vast military apparatus, as any fault within the chain results in decline or eventual collapse. We are seeing now that our economic struggle is mirrored by our military struggle in the Middle East, this too is no coincidence.
I really liked the Marxist connotation, that was, well, nice.
Do you forget that the United States facilitated the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 in order to install the dictator Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi? This direct intervention of another lesser nations political structure in order to achieve one that was more in Americas interests?
Perhaps the United States facilitation of the monarchies and dictatorial Presidents in Jordan and Egypt? The direct support of these forms of government over democratic forms of government as a means to exercise its influence in preventing populist uprising, even those in the name of democracy. As has been pointed out by other posters, academics and foreign policy analyst, that if these nations held democratic styled governments, it would very likely threaten our ally Israel, as many of their populations would desire conflict with Israel. So we have the United States directly intervening in the affairs of another nation in order to facilitate an outcome that is most favorable to US interests. This is most certainly an exercise of control and influence by economic means.
Let us not forget the US economic, political and even military support of the following people in order to garnish outcomes favorable to the United States interest. The use of our influence and power to achieve aims and outcomes beneficial to US interest, often contrary to the interest of the people in these host governments.
Idi Amin, Gen. Augusto Pinochet, Manuel Noriega, Fulgencio Batista, Islam Karimov, Ngo Dinh Diem and the list goes on and on. Now did the United States "rule" these people and their nations, no of course not. Did the United States use its power and influence in order to determine the political outcomes in various nation's in order to achieve circumstances favorable to US interest, most certainly and it did so by exercising its power through economic and even forceful means to achieve these aims.
Again I point to your assertion that "rule" is the single defining characteristic of determining both the definition of empire and imperialism is simply false. This isn't just how I see it, this is how much of the academic community views its context as well, as I've cited previously but to which you continue to ignore.
What I do find most intriguing however is that you seem inclined to accept the notion of an American empire under the premise that it is benign and benevolent, but only seem to reject the notion that it could be seen in a context of imperialism.
None of those incidents fit the bill. They each supported inner agencies who were looking to overthrow those regimes. They also if you note do not control them, as if we did... well... Iran wouldn't be much of an issue now would it?
It is a complete stretch and play on words to establish such a position. The fact that the "ivory tower" sages proclaim themselves correct is support of nothing. In fact, the bulk of Marxist attitudes stem from those institutions, what a surprise that they also share similar views!
Sorry, but just because people decided to change the meaning of something, stretch it and twist it to conform to their special ideal, does not make it fact or truth.
Like I said, its a political argument to push a particular political movement and might I add, something that our communist enemies have been attempting to label us for generations and have actively attempted to influence in our system, starting with the educational institutions.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,301 posts, read 4,418,554 times
Reputation: 2397
All empires fall. Its very nature is unsustainable for a prolonged period of time (Rome did it, but it went thru major incarnations to keep it viable). The USA - as an empire - will inevitably collapse. Hopefully, back to a Republic and not lost to history.
None of those incidents fit the bill. They each supported inner agencies who were looking to overthrow those regimes. They also if you note do not control them, as if we did... well... Iran wouldn't be much of an issue now would it?
It is a complete stretch and play on words to establish such a position. The fact that the "ivory tower" sages proclaim themselves correct is support of nothing. In fact, the bulk of Marxist attitudes stem from those institutions, what a surprise that they also share similar views!
Sorry, but just because people decided to change the meaning of something, stretch it and twist it to conform to their special ideal, does not make it fact or truth.
Like I said, its a political argument to push a particular political movement and might I add, something that our communist enemies have been attempting to label us for generations and have actively attempted to influence in our system, starting with the educational institutions.
So you are asserting that retired Col. Andrew Bacevich, whom served in Vietnam, graduated and taught at West Point, spoken before joint sessions of Congress, a Christian conservative who's son recently was killed in Iraq is espousing Marxist rhetoric like an "ivory tower" sage? Ok, sir I thought you were capable of in depth abstract discussion, I can see I was wrong.
The fact that the rest of the world debates this issue on a variety of merits, positions and constructs of this definition means nothing to you, so there is no point in having a discussion with you further. Thanks for your participation.
Empire, Superpower, Leader of Free World, Big Dog on the Block, etc...
A better way to phrase the question is: "Will the United States as we know it, no matter what you call it, fall?"
The answer is, "Yes."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldawg82
All empires fall. Its very nature is unsustainable for a prolonged period of time (Rome did it, but it went thru major incarnations to keep it viable). The USA - as an empire - will inevitably collapse. Hopefully, back to a Republic and not lost to history.
I would be ask then, what will the world look like in an era when the US is no longer able to assert political and military dominance as it is able to do today? I doubt US power and influence will totally diminish and I suspect the US will be a force to be reckoned with for many years to come, and who knows, maybe a deeper self examination is what is in order as others have pointed out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
