I wish we had an empire. Check the dictionary.
Check out the end note man. We don't necessarily befit the traditional definition of empire, but our global military appratus does reflect the nature of an Empire, as well as the language of our statesmen... It is empire in a distinctly American sense, an "Empire of Liberty." Historically, we were anti-Imperialists Imperialists, but recently American foreign policy has been overtly aggressive.
Man, seriously, read my whole comment. I know you have some political plugs and scores to settle but I have ad nausem said IN A DISTINCTLY AMERICAN SENSE of Empire, as reflected by Thomas Jefferson's landmark words the "Empire of Liberty".
Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators. ... It is [not] the wish of [our] government to impose upon you alien institutions. ... [It is our wish] that you should prosper even as in the past, when your lands were fertile, when your ancestors gave to the world literature, science, and art, and when Baghdad city was one of the wonders of the world. ... It is [our] hope that the aspirations of your philosophers and writers shall be realized and that once again the people of Baghdad shall flourish, enjoying their wealth and substance under institutions which are in consonance with their sacred laws and their racial ideals.
-- General F. S. Maude to the people of Mesopotamia, March 19, 1917
The government of Iraq, and the future of your country, will soon belong to you. ... We will end a brutal regime ... so that Iraqis can live in security. We will respect your great religious traditions, whose principles of equality and compassion are essential to Iraq's future. We will help you build a peaceful and representative government that protects the rights of all citizens. And then our military forces will leave. Iraq will go forward as a unified, independent, and sovereign nation that has regained a respected place in the world. You are a good and gifted people -- the heirs of a great civilization that contributes to all humanity.
-- President George W. Bush to the people of Iraq, April 4, 2003
Britain established a home state in Iraq just as the United States did. Regardless, Paul Bremer ruled Iraq for more than a year before any kind of Iraqi government was put into power, and even then it was not by appointement from US leaders themselves and not free Iraqi election. You're fighting a semantic battle really, and I could care less for semantics. I support the American Empire, as well as America's Republic, as I presume you do. Fighting with me is fruitless since I'm sure we can agree on many issues.
Except the permanent puppet monarchy was not at all "permanent". The British always stated their intent to leave eventually, they simply were more clear about their control for a number of years. Iraq was an Imperialist mission as was the Philipinnes: we invaded countries and established governments to our liking. The Athenians did the essentially the same thing on the Greek peninsula against city-states, they just didn't have any reservations about the old word "Empire."
Let me reiterate that our Empire is DISTINCTLY AMERICAN, as Romans were distinctly Romans and Greeks were distinctly Greeks, though America's Empire does contain elements of all of the former, as well as things borrowed from the British. That doesn't mean our Empire is going to be a mirror of one or the other for the simple reason THAT WE ARE A DIFFERENT NATION. Cherry picking facts is intellectually dishonest, especially since you're just subtracting the argument to a semantics game.
narcissistic home populace
Leads to a repeat of 1939-1945 but on a much larger scale.The other day I was talking about the decline of the American Empire(ie trillions dollar deficit, weakened global military apparatus, narcissistic home populace) and the implications, as well as consequences, its collapse would have on the world. I was talking about what a horrible effect that could plausibly have on the world when my friend responded that it would likely be good, highlighting the end of British Imperialism as a triumph for humanity. Really? Has humanity really benefited through the ages from the demise of Western empires like ancient Greece, Rome, and Imperial Britain? I mean, many nations may have achieved their autonomy from Empire's ending, but historically have in turn begotten horrible poverty because of their immature and weak economic institutions... not to mention the often volatile and anarchic political situations. It seems like academia has waged a war against Imperialism for over a century, but when we look at nations like India and China, what is the bright beacon of light in otherwise dark circumstances? To me, it is quite clearly the liberal, secular influence of the West(which has much more influence in India than in terms of China.)
Now, I don't mean to be beating the drums too much, and I understand as well as recognize the cost both in lives and treasure Imperialism has on the home nation, not to mention the often negative cultural and social affects it brings on the victim country. I also don't want to come off as arrogant, nor do I want to disregard the fruits of free trade and the fact that some influence is natural so exerting by way of arms is unnecessary.
I foresee responses that highlight the usual points of Imperialism=Bad in general, but I'm more curious about people's ACTUAL perception of America's global military apparatus, instead of some philosophical discussion of Imperialism's moral implications(Whether good or bad). What is concrete evidence that America is a malevolent force in the world? Has the Democratic peace theory not largely succeeded, thanks largely to Western nations? Do countless nations not live off American aid and/or under the shadow of her tree of liberty(heh), allowing the US military to fight wars that their militaries would otherwise be forced to partake in?
(Note: Keep in mind when I talk of America as an Empire I mean in a distinctly American sense of the term, as used by Thomas Jefferson when he wrote about the "Empire of Liberty" that would be America.)
The difference is that the British set up a puppet king while the U.S. allowed the people of Iraq to choose their own leadership.
Manning had been tasked with evaluating the arrest of 15 Iraqis rounded up by the Iraqi Federal Police for printing “anti Iraq” literature. “The Iraqi federal police wouldn’t cooperate with U.S. forces, so I was instructed to investigate the matter, find out who the ‘bad guys’ were, and how significant this was for the FPs,” he wrote.
But when Manning had the literature translated, he discovered it was a scholarly critique of Iraq Prime Minister Al-Maliki titled Where Did the Money Go?, he wrote. The document was nothing more than a “benign political critique … following the corruption trail within the PM’s cabinet.
“I immediately took that information and ran to the [U.S. Army] officer to explain what was going on. He didn’t want to hear any of it. He told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding MORE detainees.”
Empire requires a Monarchy.
English 101
Rathi, Have you lived in a Communist or post-Communist country?In general, the U.S. backed freedom of the seas has benefited most nations. The general consensus of world powers to end wars of conquest and promote stability has also been rather helpful. On the other hand, the U.S. has screwed over a bunch of countries in the last 70 years through invasion and coups. Our moronic cold war policy was responsible for most of it, although sometimes it was just about resources. Iraq is particularly unique, as the motives are still unknown. We didn't get any oil out of Iraq, so it wasn't about resources. Saddam was secular nationalist, so it wasn't about the ideological struggle with Muslim extremists. It wasn't even about strategic position, as we already had bases right next door in Saudi Arabia.
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?