WI Crippler
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 15,427
- Reaction score
- 9,577
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I have often seen many posters make reference to American "imperialism". Since the establishment of the 50th state, I find it hard to argue that we fit the ideal of traditional "imperialism" anymore, as it relates to aspects of taking and holding land for the benefit of the state. IMO, American imperialism, which could be best described as our expansion into the current 50 states from the original 13 colonies formed after the Revolution against the British Empire, is effectively over.
From our actions in WWII to support our allies from the fascist Nazi regime, and our efforts during the cold war to keep the communists out of western Europe, the liberation of South Korea from the communists, the liberation of Iraq from its dictator, our continued support for democratic allies around the world I find it hard to equate our actions with the imperialistic past of european colonialism, Persian imperialism, etc.....
And if these actions are the actions of imperialism, were we not also imperialistic in our dealings in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 90s?
We have influence, yes. But I don't necessarily equate our influence with imperialism. I don't necessarily equate fighting a war, regardless of its location, as imperialistic. Its the attitude of taking and subjecting other states as your territory or vassals that equals imperialism.
Its true that the U.S. has not engaged in the literal definition of imperialism since we made Hawaii a state. However, if you think we spent the last 50 years "promoting democracy" you are more naive than the people who claimed the U.S. engaged in imperialism. U.S. cold war policy was about ensuring we had unfettered access to natural resources and "combating communism", formal control of territory wasn't actually important.
I have often seen many posters make reference to American "imperialism". Since the establishment of the 50th state, I find it hard to argue that we fit the ideal of traditional "imperialism" anymore, as it relates to aspects of taking and holding land for the benefit of the state. IMO, American imperialism, which could be best described as our expansion into the current 50 states from the original 13 colonies formed after the Revolution against the British Empire, is effectively over.
the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
From our actions in WWII to support our allies from the fascist Nazi regime, and our efforts during the cold war to keep the communists out of western Europe, the liberation of South Korea from the communists, the liberation of Iraq from its dictator, our continued support for democratic allies around the world I find it hard to equate our actions with the imperialistic past of european colonialism, Persian imperialism, etc.....
And if these actions are the actions of imperialism, were we not also imperialistic in our dealings in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 90s?
The Gulf War of the '90's smacked even more of imperialistic intentions since Hussein invaded Kuwait, which has oil and was a seller to the U.S., so while we went to war to help free Kuwait from invasion, we also went to war to preserve our oil supply.
Yes, we went into war in Afghanistan to bring Al Quaeda to justice for the 9/11 attacks, but Bush sent us into Iraq stating that there were connections between Iraq and Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
I have often seen many posters make reference to American "imperialism". Since the establishment of the 50th state, I find it hard to argue that we fit the ideal of traditional "imperialism" anymore, as it relates to aspects of taking and holding land for the benefit of the state. IMO, American imperialism, which could be best described as our expansion into the current 50 states from the original 13 colonies formed after the Revolution against the British Empire, is effectively over.
From our actions in WWII to support our allies from the fascist Nazi regime, and our efforts during the cold war to keep the communists out of western Europe, the liberation of South Korea from the communists, the liberation of Iraq from its dictator, our continued support for democratic allies around the world I find it hard to equate our actions with the imperialistic past of european colonialism, Persian imperialism, etc.....
And if these actions are the actions of imperialism, were we not also imperialistic in our dealings in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 90s?
We have influence, yes. But I don't necessarily equate our influence with imperialism. I don't necessarily equate fighting a war, regardless of its location, as imperialistic. Its the attitude of taking and subjecting other states as your territory or vassals that equals imperialism.
Is encouraging democracy the same thing as imperialism?
Here is the first definition one gets for imperialism:
Source: Dictionary.com
By this definition the U.S. has definitely been pursuing an imperialist policy for the past century. What has changed is our manner of extending rule or authority.
That is because you put it in such rosy terms. Our efforts to "keep the communists out" involved false flag terror attacks to influence elections, bribery, and pro-American propaganda.
These same tactics were used in Japan to maintain the dominance of the Liberal Democratic Party.
South Korea was not a democracy by any stretch
and Saddam was put in power by the U.S. and his genocide of Kurds officially blamed on Iran. Hell, there is evidence we induced Saddam into war with Kuwait and it makes perfect sense.
We used Saddam to keep Iran in check, but as a side effect Saddam had gotten too powerful. So we made sure there was an opportunity to crush him. The U.S. method of extending authority is through the use of deceit and manipulation.
Spreading democracy is cultural imperialism, and so is the global "free" market. Anywhere our products go, our culture goes too. Britain paved the way with the East India Company, then once mercantilism declined the framework was replaced with capitalism.
It's hard to find places in this world where you won't see a coca cola logo or news of the American war. The Cold War permitted the U.S. to proliferate its culture and currency, with lasting affects to this day. It's not imperialism in the colonial sense, but that's why it's called neo-imperialism.
No actually what you are trying to due is change the definition of imperialism by making up your own definitions of rule and authority.
False flag terror attacks? For example? Perhaps you would have preferred several other North Korean or Cuban like totalitarian police states? Imperialism implies that we were seeking to control these nations when it wasn't about our gaining control but rather about the Soviets not gaining control, it was based on principle not self gain.
And what you think the Japanese Communists had or could have achieved popular support and even if they could do you think that would be a good thing? I much prefer current Japan to current China don't you or perhaps you have a fetish for totalitarian police states.
And it wasn't a totalitarian police state either like its neighbor to the north. I'll take an authoritarian over a totalitarian system any day of the week.
Saddam was not put into power by the U.S. and the evidence that we greenlighted Iraq's war with Kuwait comes from the Baathist regime produced transript, Glaspie did not give Saddam the go ahead that's conspiracist propaganda the same as the U.S. being responsible for putting Saddam in power.
lol ya we sure bulked up Saddams power by providing him with only .5% of his total foreign arms consisting mostly of dual use items; such as, helicopters and bulldozers retrofitted for military purposes after the fact, FYI Saddam was primarily armed by the Soviets and the French.
The United States has made use of extensive systems of control. The British Empire was built first with corporations and independent organizations, not state action. The American Empire simply builds on that method to allow the same extent of control as state action without the difficulties of managing a large foreign territory.
If it wasn't the Soviets we would have found some other threat to excuse our actions.
Notice how there always seems to be a convenient excuse? During Clinton's Presidency humanitarian intervention was the name of the game.
Under Bush it all became about rogue states and terrorism, which were largely just empty terms to describe whoever is attempting to challenge U.S. dominance.
We gladly sided with Yugoslavia which part because they turned on the Soviets
and at the same time were more than happy to woo Castro until he turned to the Soviets.
Yet this drive to against the Soviets didn't stop us from aiding anti-colonial movements in Portuguese colonies.
Also though Nasser was anti-communist and happy to deal with the West his Pan-Arab ideals were considered a serious threat to the U.S. efforts in the region.
Anything that resisted U.S. influence was immediately labeled anti-American and inevitably communist. Notice how after the Soviet Union collapsed the U.S. did not stop its efforts against Russia. The robber barons flooded into Russia and the other former states were wooed. The Cold War was really just a myth invented to justify American imperialism. Our efforts to isolate and encircle the Soviets are ultimately what caused them to behave so hostile towards us.
Japan was force-fed Western-style "democracy" and its power as a nation stripped. I would prefer Japan have found its own way rather than being told.
China is pursuing its own path and to call it a totalitarian police state just shows your own lack of knowledge on the subject. It seems you actually believe the propaganda Western media feeds people daily.
A difference of such little significance,
especially since we would have just as happily endorsed a totalitarian system.
Many members of the State Department clearly communicated that they would not take issue with what was going on between Iraq and Kuwait.
It would hardly be the first time we coaxed another country into war in order to weaken a potential threat. The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan was a desired outcome for the U.S., which it deliberately sought to instigate.
Such manufactured actions are hardly unusual. The Gulf of Tonkin comes to mind.
There is evidence not only that Saddam was given soothing words from the U.S. to induce him into invading Kuwait,
but that the U.S. was doing everything it could to keep Saddam there and mislead the world into thinking he was planning more aggression all in order to justify a war against Iraq. A little reminder about who was top boss and a good way to justify continued American military dominance in the world given the imminent end of the Cold War.
Also Saddam was a long-time asset of the CIA and Iraqi Ba'ath Party had strong ties to the CIA.
We gave Saddam something else. We gave his forces training,
intelligence,
and the U.S. actively aided and insured Iraq got those foreign arms.
It actually made good sense for the U.S. to avoid supplying much weaponry to Iraq given its ties with the Soviet Union and China. U.S. support was more significant and effective than simply giving them weapons.
lol a royal charter is not the equivalent of a corporation
I'm sure.
What was the humanitarian intervention an excuse for exactly?
So there wasn't a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 U.S. civilians? Are you asserting that it was a false flag operation? Are are you a twoofer?
Yugoslavia like Egypt was a part of the non-aligned movement.
He, also, nationalized U.S. assets.
Not really following you here.
So we were supposed to aid the militaristic dictatorship of Nasser? And if we had I'm sure you would be bitching about that as well.
Um we didn't oppose Nasser until he accepted arms shipments from the Soviets, I don't ever recall labeling him a Communist. Which nation did we label Communist that wasn't in fact Communist?
Japan had engaged in militaristic campaign of mass murder through Asia and the Pacific, that was their own way, are you out of your mind?
Ya China's own way resulted in the largest genocide in the history of this planet sport.
Totalitarian is completely different than authoritarian, modern North Korea in relation to modern South Korea proves the validity of the Kirkpatrick doctrine.
Prove it.
No there is the proven false assertion that Glaspie said something similar to that, it was competely false, and there have been no other members of the State Department accused of making such statements.
So now the U.S. is responsible for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? WTF? You must be joking, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to obtain a warm water point, we didn't instigate it.
At least one attack on a U.S. ship occurred in the Gulf of Tonkin by the North Vietnamese. Exaggerated yes? Manufactured? No.
No there isn't actually, the inverse is actually true, the U.S. said in no uncertain terms that if Saddam invaded the U.S. would respond and we then gave him ample opportunity to withdraw his forces warning that if he did not it would result in a state of war between us.
Um the U.S. did everything to get Saddam to withdrawal before we engaged in hostilities. We even set a deadline for him to withdrawal and stated if he did not we would attack, he thought we were bluffing, we were not.
What training?
Only when it looked like Iran might suceed in conquering Iraq.
Really we had a say in Soviet Union arms distribution? Is there nothing we can't do?
U.S. support to Saddam was minimal at best.
You really need to get yourself educated on this matter. Most corporations used to only be able to form when they received a charter from the government. Some corporations still need to receive a charter from the government. While a charter is granted to other bodies it is granted to corporations and that includes royal charters. If you're saying the British East India Company was not a corporation then you can just GTFO.
You should. Tell me, what possible reason did we have for the 1958 Lebanon War?
Hello? Yugoslavia?
I think there is a good deal of reason to question the official story, and evidence indicating it was in some manner aided by actors in our government.
However, even without 9-11 an excuse would have been found.
So were India and Cuba. Are you really telling me you think the non-aligned movement actually represented a neutral third party?
Of course, the actions to eliminate U.S. corporate monopolies on their country's economy was a factor.
We supported groups that actively fought Portugal, a supposed ally.
We didn't care that he was a dictator.
We were working with Nasser and Egypt long after he received arms from the Eastern bloc. The U.S. government treated any lean towards leftism as a lean towards communism and by that I mean any effort to end corporate imperialism or strengthen worker's rights was seen as a dangerous step towards communism. The establishment in the United States opposed communism long before the Soviet Union came into being and various other movements of a similar nature. One common trait is these were all anti-establishment movements that advocated greater rights for the people. It is quite interesting as one can liken the resistance to such movement with the resistance of the European monarchies to republican revolutionaries.
So are you saying the Japanese only know how to kill and rape without us white folk telling them otherwise?
China has committed no genocide and please do no distort Chinese history. Too many people fall for that Cold War propaganda garbage and it still floats around contaminating people's thoughts.
There is a difference of degrees.
Am I really going to have to point out the totalitarian regimes we have supported and the ones we still support to this day? I would think you know enough about history.
You keep thinking I'm talking about her, but this was a clear position put forward by the U.S. No serious effort was made to dissuade Saddam from going to war and indeed we were quite soft to him to the point where there was no reason he would think the U.S. had any intention of going to war.
Congratulations for demonstrating that you do not know the actual history of the Cold War. I do love how it seems only America's enemies are motivated by imperialistic designs. Must be some nice world you live in.
Seriously, you need to do some research. The U.S. could not have been any less certain about the terms. We justified Desert Shield on the (false) basis that Iraq was planning to attack Saudi Arabia. The buildup to war in Kuwait saw propaganda, exaggerations, and deliberate fabrications get thrown out to justify invasion.
Not to mention things we had previously had no problem with before were suddenly a serious reason to oppose Saddam. The whole thing was phony and the real purpose was no different than the two phony wars of the 1980's in Afghanistan and between Iran and Iraq. It was all about increasing American power, which necessarily includes weakening other powers.
Issuing an ultimatum is not doing everything.
Wow, you really don't know anything about this stuff do you? How the hell can you take such a strong position when you don't even have such critical knowledge?
The Soviet Union was far from alone in supplying Iraq with weaponry. The U.S. did provide Iraq weapons through other channels.
We didn't give him much of our weaponry, for good reason, but our support was critical in the war.
Here is the first definition one gets for imperialism:
Source: Dictionary.com
By this definition the U.S. has definitely been pursuing an imperialist policy for the past century. What has changed is our manner of extending rule or authority.
Could it be possible that these are simply foreign policy tactics to help secure American financial interests, and not underhanded attempts to "rule" or extend "authority over" them as the definition suggests? If anything, especially compared to nations such as Nazi Germany, the USSR, People's Republic of China, Fascist Italy, etc, over the past century, I would have to say America's involvement in foreign policy has been more reactive than proactive. Imperialism, by any definition, assumes a proactive foreign policy. Would you agree?The U.S. method of extending authority is through the use of deceit and manipulation
Could it be possible that these are simply foreign policy tactics to help secure American financial interests, and not underhanded attempts to "rule" or extend "authority over" them as the definition suggests? If anything, especially compared to nations such as Nazi Germany, the USSR, People's Republic of China, Fascist Italy, etc, over the past century, I would have to say America's involvement in foreign policy has been more reactive than proactive. Imperialism, by any definition, assumes a proactive foreign policy. Would you agree?
Now THAT was an excellent response! Glad to see our European minions have finally learned to accept their place in the empire.If I may join this debate ... I am not sure about that. There have been pretty shady actions by the US occasionally, which can better be explained by a tendency to defend material interests rather than defending Western values (although that often was congruent in other cases), think of involvement in Latin America during the Cold War, for example.
But, despite all this, as a member of a periphery state of the American empire, I have to say America is a rather nice hegemon, it brings us many advantages and privileges over here to live within this realm, and usually, America is a sympathetic emperor, rather loved for the benefits of its soft power than feared or hated for the use of its hard power.
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?