• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

American Nation vs American Empire (1 Viewer)

sanman

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Messages
12,977
Reaction score
5,153
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
America's national institutions are gradually being eroded and replaced with institutions of empire. This is because the needs of the American nation are very different from the needs of an American empire. The American nation was built on the principles of its founding fathers, which were enshrined in its constitution. But as the American empire has grown, it has found the constraints of the US constitution to be too confining and inconvenient, and so it seeks to replace the core values and features of the US constitution with new values and features that are more convenient for the needs and purposes of empire. There is the idea of America the nation and the idea of America the empire - and only one can prevail in the end. In the long run, both cannot coexist in the same space at the same time.
 
America's national institutions are gradually being eroded and replaced with institutions of empire. This is because the needs of the American nation are very different from the needs of an American empire. The American nation was built on the principles of its founding fathers, which were enshrined in its constitution. But as the American empire has grown, it has found the constraints of the US constitution to be too confining and inconvenient, and so it seeks to replace the core values and features of the US constitution with new values and features that are more convenient for the needs and purposes of empire. There is the idea of America the nation and the idea of America the empire - and only one can prevail in the end. In the long run, both cannot coexist in the same space at the same time.
Another overly simplistic analysis. Please tell your handlers to find somebody that knows how to construct an argument if they are going to insist on posting here.
 
America's national institutions are gradually being eroded and replaced with institutions of empire. This is because the needs of the American nation are very different from the needs of an American empire. The American nation was built on the principles of its founding fathers, which were enshrined in its constitution. But as the American empire has grown, it has found the constraints of the US constitution to be too confining and inconvenient, and so it seeks to replace the core values and features of the US constitution with new values and features that are more convenient for the needs and purposes of empire. There is the idea of America the nation and the idea of America the empire - and only one can prevail in the end. In the long run, both cannot coexist in the same space at the same time.

gob·ble·dy·gook
/ˈɡäbəldēˌɡo͞ok/
Learn to pronounce
nounINFORMAL
language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense
 
Those who support the replacement of the American nation with an America empire will be the first to scoff at the idea. They will scoff at things like appointments to the Supreme Court which are designed to put obedient flunkies on the Court. They'll gloss over the absurd spectacle of the senile POTUS and mentally vacuous VP who really just wants to be a VIP. They will scoff at concerns over attempts to federalize election laws, to bring the various electoral contests across America under a single centralized control. They will scoff at concerns over dilution of Voter ID laws, and promotion of mail-in balloting which can facilitate ballot-harvesting. They will scoff at the alarm over America's southern border situation, and attempts to encourage illegal migration into America. They'll claim it's all just shallow nativism. They'll also increasingly insist on America being involved in foreign wars of choice, while reflexively calling their critics the warmongers. They'll pretend they want to help the poor, while promoting ridiculous populist spending policies which only stoke inflation that hurts the poor. Welcome to the rising American empire -- risen on the ashes of the American nation.
 
America's national institutions are gradually being eroded and replaced with institutions of empire. This is because the needs of the American nation are very different from the needs of an American empire. The American nation was built on the principles of its founding fathers, which were enshrined in its constitution. But as the American empire has grown, it has found the constraints of the US constitution to be too confining and inconvenient, and so it seeks to replace the core values and features of the US constitution with new values and features that are more convenient for the needs and purposes of empire. There is the idea of America the nation and the idea of America the empire - and only one can prevail in the end. In the long run, both cannot coexist in the same space at the same time.
Define the needs of an American empire.
 
Define the needs of an American empire.

An American empire is an entity that obediently fights foreign wars on distant frontiers, even while ignoring the integrity of homeland borders. An American empire exists not for the general benefit of its own home citizenry, but for the benefit of a war lobby and the distant lands they align with. An American empire is trans-nationalist in nature, as opposed to mainly promoting the interests of itself as a nation. An American empire is a tool for endless foreign wars, while the homeland and its people are left to rot.
 
An American empire is an entity that obediently fights foreign wars on distant frontiers, even while ignoring the integrity of homeland borders. An American empire exists not for the general benefit of its own home citizenry, but for the benefit of a war lobby and the distant lands they align with. An American empire is trans-nationalist in nature, as opposed to mainly promoting the interests of itself as a nation. An American empire is a tool for endless foreign wars, while the homeland and its people are left to rot.
You're still speaking in broad platitudes.

I asked you to define something.
 
America's national institutions are gradually being eroded and replaced with institutions of empire. This is because the needs of the American nation are very different from the needs of an American empire. The American nation was built on the principles of its founding fathers, which were enshrined in its constitution. But as the American empire has grown, it has found the constraints of the US constitution to be too confining and inconvenient, and so it seeks to replace the core values and features of the US constitution with new values and features that are more convenient for the needs and purposes of empire. There is the idea of America the nation and the idea of America the empire - and only one can prevail in the end. In the long run, both cannot coexist in the same space at the same time.
The US has been an empire since the Spanish American war. Our economic and political relations with much of the hemisphere throughout the 20th century were not much different than those of previous empires, except we didn’t color our quasi-colonies pink on world maps as Britain did.
 
You're still speaking in broad platitudes.

I asked you to define something.
em·pire
/ˈemˌpī(ə)r/
  1. an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress.
    "the Roman Empire"

  2. a large commercial organization owned or controlled by one person or group.
    "her business empire grew"


  3. adjective
    /ämˈpir/
    denoting a style of furniture, decoration, or dress fashionable during the First or (less commonly) the Second Empire in France. The decorative style was neoclassical but marked by an interest in Egyptian and other ancient motifs probably inspired by Napoleon's Egyptian campaigns.
 
em·pire
/ˈemˌpī(ə)r/
  1. an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress.
    "the Roman Empire"

  2. a large commercial organization owned or controlled by one person or group.
    "her business empire grew"


  3. adjective
    /ämˈpir/
    denoting a style of furniture, decoration, or dress fashionable during the First or (less commonly) the Second Empire in France. The decorative style was neoclassical but marked by an interest in Egyptian and other ancient motifs probably inspired by Napoleon's Egyptian campaigns.
Still nothing?
 
America's national institutions are gradually being eroded and replaced with institutions of empire. This is because the needs of the American nation are very different from the needs of an American empire. The American nation was built on the principles of its founding fathers, which were enshrined in its constitution. But as the American empire has grown, it has found the constraints of the US constitution to be too confining and inconvenient, and so it seeks to replace the core values and features of the US constitution with new values and features that are more convenient for the needs and purposes of empire. There is the idea of America the nation and the idea of America the empire - and only one can prevail in the end. In the long run, both cannot coexist in the same space at the same time.
 
America's national institutions are gradually being eroded and replaced with institutions of empire. This is because the needs of the American nation are very different from the needs of an American empire. The American nation was built on the principles of its founding fathers, which were enshrined in its constitution. But as the American empire has grown, it has found the constraints of the US constitution to be too confining and inconvenient, and so it seeks to replace the core values and features of the US constitution with new values and features that are more convenient for the needs and purposes of empire. There is the idea of America the nation and the idea of America the empire - and only one can prevail in the end. In the long run, both cannot coexist in the same space at the same time.
America has pretty much given up its empire over the last hundred years. Now American is an hegemony which means it uses culture and wealth to control the world.
 
America's national institutions are gradually being eroded and replaced with institutions of empire. This is because the needs of the American nation are very different from the needs of an American empire. The American nation was built on the principles of its founding fathers, which were enshrined in its constitution. But as the American empire has grown, it has found the constraints of the US constitution to be too confining and inconvenient, and so it seeks to replace the core values and features of the US constitution with new values and features that are more convenient for the needs and purposes of empire. There is the idea of America the nation and the idea of America the empire - and only one can prevail in the end. In the long run, both cannot coexist in the same space at the same time.
This was an amazingly detailed post, rife with examples to support the points made in the opening paragraph. Indeed, I hope the nation rises up to anoint you our preeminent thought leader. Future generations shall--oh wait, you only posted the first paragraph of your monologue. Nevermind.
 
This was an amazingly detailed post, rife with examples to support the points made in the opening paragraph. Indeed, I hope the nation rises up to anoint you our preeminent thought leader. Future generations shall--oh wait, you only posted the first paragraph of your monologue. Nevermind.
Thanks, I try. It's sort of like we're in Kyiv and you insist on asking me for proof there's an invasion going on, while the bullets are whizzing around us. Some people will still quibble no matter what.
 
Thanks, I try. It's sort of like we're in Kyiv and you insist on asking me for proof there's an invasion going on, while the bullets are whizzing around us. Some people will still quibble no matter what.
Actually, while I agree with your thesis, I’d like you to flesh it out. What are the new “values and features” of empire?
 
America has pretty much given up its empire over the last hundred years. Now American is an hegemony which means it uses culture and wealth to control the world.

That's not entirely true. Democracy or Nation Building is the new empirical model of regime change, puppet installation, control of natural resources, access to World Bank, extraction of wealth, etc.

Then follows the military bases, missile sites, ammo stashes, safe houses, secret torture sites. and so forth
 
Actually, while I agree with your thesis, I’d like you to flesh it out. What are the new “values and features” of empire?

I think that a nation exists for its own people. But an empire exists to pursue foreign wars in an ever expanding quest for more power. Nations don't fight unless their own homeland is threatened. Empires keep fighting to keep pushing outwards and keep expanding the domain of their influence, in an endless cycle of foreign adventurism.

I think that America's founding fathers came up with an excellent framework to build a harmonious and prosperous nation. But as that nation naturally prospered and grew, then at some point it came under the sway of those who wanted to harness that success and use it to build an empire.

I think Woodrow Wilson was an example of a president who sought to involve America in wars in Europe, and he even high-handedly suppressed domestic criticism of his over-ambitious policies. Wilson's intervention in WW1 led to the very lopsided Treaty of Versailles, which created so much resentment and grievance in Germany that it later led to the rise of Hitler and his Third Reich. Had Wilson not played his negative role, then there might not have been a WW2.
Another example would be Theodore Roosevelt, who supported Japanese militarism because he wanted the Japanese to fight the Russians and tie them down in the Far East, This again helped endanger the Pacific and led to WW2. In a sense, Imperial Japan were forerunners of the Afghan jihadists, who were the product of a later foreign policy era stunt.
Kennedy naively jumped into Vietnam, and Johnson continued the quagmire even further.
Nixon and Kissinger got out of Vietnam, but decided to tilt the US toward China, in the hopes that they could use China to contain the Soviet Union on its eastern flank. But this policy has continued even beyond the breakup of the Soviet Union, and has now resulted in a very powerful China which can now exert its hegemony over the Asia-Pacific, and even potentially become a global hegemon and world's biggest supwerpower. Yet to this day, Henry Kissinger insists that the solution to this predicament is for the US to kowtow even further to China - even after China's role in the origins of the COVID pandemic.
Carter and Brzezinski sought to cultivate jihadists to likewise bleed the Soviet Union, and we can see that this ultimately culminated in 9-11, and America's longest overseas war in Afghanistan.
Carter lost Iran, and Reagan supported Saddam to hammer Iran. Saddam then later got out of control, and Bush then hammered Iraq.
Clinton & Albright did their part in going into the Balkans and taking sides in that civil war, creating an unstable arrangement that can't last, and could potentially provoke yet another major war. They also tried to shove Israelis & Palestinians into a shotgun wedding which soon broke down, resulting in the intifada.
After 9-11 happened, Bush Jr, egged on by discontented factions of the aforementioned peace breakdown, used 9-11 as a pretext to destroy Iraq even worse, because he was upset that Saddam had outlasted his dad in power.
Obama was more hands-on on domestic policy and more hands-off on foreign policy. Domestically, he was like a tail wagging the dog, seeking to build up govt power to redistribute wealth as he saw fit. On foreign policy, he let the various special interest lobbies have their way, just like Clinton did.
Trump actually tamped down on some of America's overreaching foreign engagements, but he antagonized the special interest lobbies who sought to invert the narrative against him, by claiming he was a warmonger.
Biden is now the ultimate shill, both senile and pliable, with all of his party's special interest lobbies running amok right under his blind gaze, with him either not seeing or not caring. They're running the show, and he's just the front-man, the puppet on the throne.

You may remember this old nursery rhyme song:




As the end of the song shows, the cycle of stuntsmanship is unsustainable.
 
Yay for you, you're a nationalist! Here....🦞, celebrate with a Lob and a Beer.
 
America's national institutions are gradually being eroded and replaced with institutions of empire. This is because the needs of the American nation are very different from the needs of an American empire. The American nation was built on the principles of its founding fathers, which were enshrined in its constitution. But as the American empire has grown, it has found the constraints of the US constitution to be too confining and inconvenient, and so it seeks to replace the core values and features of the US constitution with new values and features that are more convenient for the needs and purposes of empire. There is the idea of America the nation and the idea of America the empire - and only one can prevail in the end. In the long run, both cannot coexist in the same space at the same time.

Another overly simplistic analysis. Please tell your handlers to find somebody that knows how to construct an argument if they are going to insist on posting here.

Glad to see that you follow your own advice. Democrat/left, I presume as it reeks of "do as I say and not as I do" because your constructive argument post is missing. (think about all those democrats that overtly broke COVID-19 rules during the last 2 years - many caught red-handed - but of course, nothing happened to them.
 
I think that a nation exists for its own people. But an empire exists to pursue foreign wars in an ever expanding quest for more power. Nations don't fight unless their own homeland is threatened. Empires keep fighting to keep pushing outwards and keep expanding the domain of their influence, in an endless cycle of foreign adventurism.

I think that America's founding fathers came up with an excellent framework to build a harmonious and prosperous nation. But as that nation naturally prospered and grew, then at some point it came under the sway of those who wanted to harness that success and use it to build an empire.

I think Woodrow Wilson was an example of a president who sought to involve America in wars in Europe, and he even high-handedly suppressed domestic criticism of his over-ambitious policies. Wilson's intervention in WW1 led to the very lopsided Treaty of Versailles, which created so much resentment and grievance in Germany that it later led to the rise of Hitler and his Third Reich. Had Wilson not played his negative role, then there might not have been a WW2.
++ As I recall the history, Wilson was not happy with the punishment of Germany, suggesting a softer line than France, for example.

Another example would be Theodore Roosevelt, who supported Japanese militarism because he wanted the Japanese to fight the Russians and tie them down in the Far East, This again helped endanger the Pacific and led to WW2. In a sense, Imperial Japan were forerunners of the Afghan jihadists, who were the product of a later foreign policy era stunt.
Kennedy naively jumped into Vietnam, and Johnson continued the quagmire even further.
Nixon and Kissinger got out of Vietnam, but decided to tilt the US toward China, in the hopes that they could use China to contain the Soviet Union on its eastern flank. But this policy has continued even beyond the breakup of the Soviet Union, and has now resulted in a very powerful China which can now exert its hegemony over the Asia-Pacific, and even potentially become a global hegemon and world's biggest supwerpower. Yet to this day, Henry Kissinger insists that the solution to this predicament is for the US to kowtow even further to China - even after China's role in the origins of the COVID pandemic.
Carter and Brzezinski sought to cultivate jihadists to likewise bleed the Soviet Union, and we can see that this ultimately culminated in 9-11, and America's longest overseas war in Afghanistan.
Carter lost Iran, and Reagan supported Saddam to hammer Iran. Saddam then later got out of control, and Bush then hammered Iraq.
Clinton & Albright did their part in going into the Balkans and taking sides in that civil war, creating an unstable arrangement that can't last, and could potentially provoke yet another major war. They also tried to shove Israelis & Palestinians into a shotgun wedding which soon broke down, resulting in the intifada.
After 9-11 happened, Bush Jr, egged on by discontented factions of the aforementioned peace breakdown, used 9-11 as a pretext to destroy Iraq even worse, because he was upset that Saddam had outlasted his dad in power.
Obama was more hands-on on domestic policy and more hands-off on foreign policy. Domestically, he was like a tail wagging the dog, seeking to build up govt power to redistribute wealth as he saw fit. On foreign policy, he let the various special interest lobbies have their way, just like Clinton did.
Trump actually tamped down on some of America's overreaching foreign engagements, but he antagonized the special interest lobbies who sought to invert the narrative against him, by claiming he was a warmonger.
++ True, Trump wanted to withdraw support from things like NATO, but he supported pretty vicious dictators. And it’s hard to take seriously someone who endorsed war crimes and pardoned those who committed them. And he seemed enchanted by the special interest that was Russia.
Biden is now the ultimate shill, both senile and pliable, with all of his party's special interest lobbies running amok right under his blind gaze, with him either not seeing or not caring. They're running the show, and he's just the front-man, the puppet on the throne.
You may remember this old nursery rhyme song:




As the end of the song shows, the cycle of stuntsmanship is unsustainable.

++ Name a president who was not beholden to some special interest or other. That Biden would like to reverse some of Trump’s and republicans’ special interest tax cuts is ok with me.
 
The concept of 'empire' can perhaps be modified to include 'sphere of influence'. And, while we're at it, having some degree of control over another nation, to the extent that it is willing [Ed.: or forced,] to link its fortunes to those of another, can be achieved economically as well as militarily.

As to the various institutions of the United States of America, at present they seem to be in the process of being discredited and eroded from within as opposed to undergoing change to a different form.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.
 
++ As I recall the history, Wilson was not happy with the punishment of Germany, suggesting a softer line than France, for example.
Wilson was feeling pangs of conscience, after having intervened on the side of Britain & France, who were in the driver's seat and able to impose their victor's terms in Versailles.


++ True, Trump wanted to withdraw support from things like NATO, but he supported pretty vicious dictators. And it’s hard to take seriously someone who endorsed war crimes and pardoned those who committed them. And he seemed enchanted by the special interest that was Russia.

Which dictators did Trump especially support? Trump had said he felt not toppling a dictator (eg. Saddam, Qaddafi) was better than toppling them and seeing AlQaeda and other radicals emerge there in their place.

++ Name a president who was not beholden to some special interest or other. That Biden would like to reverse some of Trump’s and republicans’ special interest tax cuts is ok with me.
Biden and others Democrats are now in the hip pocket of Big Capital. That's why blue collar working class are now suddenly Deplorables.
The Democrat Left had decided to switch over from backing the blue collar working class people to instead supporting Big Capital, Big Tech, Globalization, etc.

But as per the State of the Union, you just saw Biden suddenly start talking about bringing jobs back, etc -- basically stealing Trump's playbook -- because he sees that his poll numbers have tanked.
How he can actually deliver on this rhetoric is unknown.
 
Wilson was feeling pangs of conscience, after having intervened on the side of Britain & France, who were in the driver's seat and able to impose their victor's terms in Versailles.




Which dictators did Trump especially support? Trump had said he felt not toppling a dictator (eg. Saddam, Qaddafi) was better than toppling them and seeing AlQaeda and other radicals emerge there in their place.
++ Duterte was one. He also said that while Saddam was a bad guy, he supported the way he dealt with terrorists. There was Kim in N Korea, Putin and Xi in China. Easy to find on line.

Biden and others Democrats are now in the hip pocket of Big Capital. That's why blue collar working class are now suddenly Deplorables.
The Democrat Left had decided to switch over from backing the blue collar working class people to instead supporting Big Capital, Big Tech, Globalization, etc.

But as per the State of the Union, you just saw Biden suddenly start talking about bringing jobs back, etc -- basically stealing Trump's playbook -- because he sees that his poll numbers have tanked.
How he can actually deliver on this rhetoric is unknown.
+ Biden is doing quite well on the jobs front.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom