Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
As a courtesy I followed and would have to join to read the entire article, so only read the first page. The CIA, as you know so well, is not famous for truth so the title of the article is an oxymoron in itself. Another note, the CFR is a Rockefeller, the same Rockefeller from United Fruit Corp., funded think tank, not a govermental organization. But using a working plantation owner in a banana Republic as a reference to respectability and truth is willfully deceptive.
By definition, to be an imperial power it would need colonies.
The US is a former colony and is by it`s history of being that and bringing down some of the greatest imperial powers a antiimperialist country.
Is america a modern imperialistic power? We have invade like 22 different country's in the last 20 years, and while there have been complaints and retaliation, we still do it.
.....I have to challenge that. Britains' Empire may have expanded in the famous "fit of absence of mind", but the idea that it wasn't linked to military dominance of the space is... from what I understand, simply not tenable. Britain didn't pick up India or South Africa because they came in and asked pretty-please.
To be fair annexation doesn't really follow the modern principles of imperialism. It's better defined as domination through political, economic, and/or military means.
I didn't say Great Britain did not enjoy military (particularly naval) dominance, but I said that its colonial possessions were not gained by means of military invasion. I.e: the British armed forces did not defeat the Indian armed forces, the African armed forces, the American armed forces, the Malay armed forces, or the Australian armed forces, in order to vanquish and occupy those territories. That the British used their military might to ward of other colonial powers, primarily the French, the Spanish, and the Dutch, is inarguable, but that is not to what I referred.
I do not doubt you have read your history of the British empire, and know that India, for example, was breached (in the trading sense) by the East India Company, and it took from 1601 to 1833 for it to develop governing influence in India, which was ended in 1858 by the British government stepping in to stop the violent excesses of the company. This is very far from a military conquest and occupation.
That the colonisation of India, Malaya, America, Australia, and parts of Africa was exploitative is not in question either, my point devolves about the modus operandi of gaining these overseas possessions. I am not an apologist for any form of imperialism.
Yeah, that's the rationale leftists use when countries decide to abandon a form of government that doesn't work and establish a new one. 'Just domination by the damned Americans' is the popular left wing refrain. After all, there has to be some response to the undeniable fact that we get out of those countries at the first available opportunity.
It all depends how you define things.Is america a modern imperialistic power? We have invade like 22 different country's in the last 20 years, and while there have been complaints and retaliation, we still do it.
Is america a modern imperialistic power? We have invade like 22 different country's in the last 20 years, and while there have been complaints and retaliation, we still do it.
You're not very familiar with modern studies of foreign affairs are you? Or for that matter that of the last 200 years?
We must be the worst imperialistic country in the world to have ever existed. We still have 50 states and last I checked.. We invade, then give countries back to the people in good faith that they will take control. Imperialistic countries have never done that in world history. At least not before completely controlling them for long periods of time and claiming them as their territory.
Are we imperialist country? Absolutely. Do we practice traditional imperialism? No. Its a neo-imperialism.
YOu only have to check on who's calling us Imperialists. They're the US bashers, and you can find them anywhere. Especially here.
You are correct that the British military generally followed British merchants, but the idea that they did not defeat local armed forces in order to gain and secure territory is flatly not true. Typically the expansion in India, for example, was marked by taking advantage of chaos during a period of succession in neighboring areas to move in and defeat often divided forces. Similarly in America, the British absolutely fought and defeated the local Natives in pitched and quite bloody conflict.
Boer War sound familiar at all? Battle of Omdurman? Sepoy Rebellion? Opium War? The Australian Aborigines didn't enter into a co-op with you, they were driven out.
The British Empire was the most liberal of the Classic Empires, certainly. But there is a reason that the old saying that "Whatever happens, We have got, The Maxim Gun, and they have not" is a British one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?