Areopagitican
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Messages
- 672
- Reaction score
- 231
- Location
- University of San Diego
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Rathi, Have you lived in a Communist or post-Communist country?
There is not one American base currently operating in any country, anywhere in the world, where the dutifully elected and acknowledged government of said country does not specifically approve of American forces. If by that standard alone, I maintain that America is not an empire.
I agree. I'm just not so scared of saying "Empire" and associating it with the American Republic. The fact of that matter remains that ancient Athens was a democracy yet still maintained an empire, without any emperor or tyrant. The Roman Republic had an empire before Julius Caesar came around, so why is it so hard for people to accept contemporary America as an empire? I suppose it comes from peoples' perception that empires were always out for self-profit and were completely un-idealistic, which couldn't be farther from the truth. We are an empire in a distinctly American sense. I have not seen any substantial level of evidence to refute that claim, but instead people that agree with the tenets of America's foreign policy but fear associating it with the one key word: empire.
You cannot correctly associate "Empire" and "Republic" by etymology nor by definition, as an empire requires a monarchy. The fate of the territories that the United States occupies is not in the hand of a monarch, but a conglomerate of elected politicians, and by proxy, the American people.
Then was Thomas Jefferson denoting America would have an empire when he talked about America's "Empire of Liberty"? Please, explain that to me.
Empire noun. -
a powerful and important enterprise or holding of large scope that is controlled by a single person, family, or group of associates
"The essence of empire is not fighting, is not conquering, it’s training indigenous forces to project power on their own, in their own interest but also in your interest."
–Robert Kaplan
The possible group of associates would be considered the oligarchy. Now please tell me how that can possibly work within a republic's framework; there is not master branch where all the power in embedded (yet).
Arch Enemy said:I think TJ, as I call him from time to time (we go way back), was trying to be poetic.
I suppose it comes from peoples' perception that empires were always out for self-profit and were completely un-idealistic, which couldn't be farther from the truth. We are an empire in a distinctly American sense.
There is not one American base currently operating in any country, anywhere in the world, where the dutifully elected and acknowledged government of said country does not specifically approve of American forces. If by that standard alone, I maintain that America is not an empire.
You cannot correctly associate "Empire" and "Republic" by etymology nor by definition, as an empire requires a monarchy. The fate of the territories that the United States occupies is not in the hand of a monarch, but a conglomerate of elected politicians, and by proxy, the American people.
You are aware that Saudi Arabia is a monarchy right? The U.S. exerts too little control to be called on empire, but you are dead wrong about local feelings on our bases.
There is nothing distinctly American about our empire.
How is that exactly? I can point to tangible, credible evidence that our foreign endeavors from the Barbary Wars up to Operation Iraqi Freedom have idealistic causes as the driving force. What ACTUAL evidence do you have to the contrary? No rhetoric, I want facts.Demon of Light said:Also, much of our policy is driven by self-profit and is un-idealistic
Demon of Light said:though I certainly agree idealistic ends can be a goal of an empire.
I suppose not if you subscribe to the Howard Zinn: Empire vs Humanity paradigm, but otherwise the stark differences between America's empire and those of the past are numerous and large. Unlike Athens, we don't force any nations to our alliance nor do we tax those under us. But more importantly, our ideals have evolved a lot since the time of Pericles Athens, and so to say the two are essentially the same would be an inherent fallacy. And of course the differences with the other two Western Empires are so obvious it is a waste of time for me to lay it out... Then there's the case of many other empires throughout history that don't represent the Western, liberal tradition. Those are not so distinct and again, the differences are staggering enough to present themselves.
How is that exactly? I can point to tangible, credible evidence that our foreign endeavors from the Barbary Wars up to Operation Iraqi Freedom have idealistic causes as the driving force. What ACTUAL evidence do you have to the contrary? No rhetoric, I want facts.
Well, when your ends are a liberal government, and you're means to achieve that end are "liberalizing" the country, then both your end and the means to reach that end are idealistic.
I think maybe you need to look a little more in to our relationships with foreign countries. We actually have forced nations into our alliances and though we have not taxed countries exactly we have wrung other economic concessions out of them. There is a difference of style, but not substance.
The Barbary Wars? Are you serious? What idealistic cause do you think was driving that?
Nationalized industries consistently and constantly perform worse than their private counterparts. Private competitors have always been better than nationalized industries. Notice how the share of the world's GDP national governments control has declined consistently since the 60s (you can google it). If anything, not opening up creates more exploitation.Liberalizing has non-idealistic benefits. Introducing privatization to a country that previously had nationalized industries opens it up to exploitation by foreign business interests.
Also, manipulating the ignorant masses into supporting your favored candidate is far easier than instigating a coup against a dictator. You look into the National Endowment for Democracy and our general Cold War policies you will find we typically invest money and other resources all to insure a candidate favorable to U.S. interests takes power. During the Cold War we even made use of false-flag terrorist operations to sway elections, bribed politicians, and disseminated propaganda all in an effort to insure the candidate or party we wanted to win would win.
Forced nations into our alliances? You've got to be kidding me. Whose capital, please remind me, have we sent our tanks in to keep them in line?
Freedom of the Seas. It's a big love fest for people interested in that sort of stuff.
Nationalized industries consistently and constantly perform worse than their private counterparts. Private competitors have always been better than nationalized industries. Notice how the share of the world's GDP national governments control has declined consistently since the 60s (you can google it). If anything, not opening up creates more exploitation.
There is undoubtably a checkered past to American Cold War foreign policy, and while I personally believe that each of those "terrorist operations" were required; by your own standards American foreign policy following WWII has created a world that is freer, less violent, and more prosperous by every standard you can find.
Forced nations into our alliances? You've got to be kidding me. Whose capital, please remind me, have we sent our tanks in to keep them in line?
Freedom of the Seas. It's a big love fest for people interested in that sort of stuff.
Nationalized industries consistently and constantly perform worse than their private counterparts. Private competitors have always been better than nationalized industries. Notice how the share of the world's GDP national governments control has declined consistently since the 60s (you can google it). If anything, not opening up creates more exploitation.
There is undoubtably a checkered past to American Cold War foreign policy, and while I personally believe that each of those "terrorist operations" were required; by your own standards American foreign policy following WWII has created a world that is freer, less violent, and more prosperous by every standard you can find.
There's no sense arguing with this guy, in a recent argument I had with him he actually claimed that the U.S. was somehow responsible for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
We were more than responsible for it, it was a desired consequence of U.S. actions. Zbigniew Brzezinski of the Carter Administration noted that U.S. support for mujahideen prior to the invasion was a major factor in the invasion and was cited as a pretext by the Soviets. When the invasion happened it allowed the U.S. to give the Soviets their Vietnam, those are Brzezinski's words.
If you believe all those countries have been dutifully elected governments then we're really gonna need to have a discussion about your standards. Also, we've had bases in some of these countries for a while, before they became dutifully-elected democracies and the terms of these treaties can be hard to annul. Cuba's government would love to kick us out of Gitmo, but the treaty we have with them requires us to agree on leaving.
Do I really need to recite the litany of incidents where the U.S. has invaded Latin American countries, especially those in the Caribbean, to remove a government we oppose or prevent a government we support from falling? I assure you that practice is not limited to the Americas either and overt military action is far from the only means we utilized.
I'm not sure where you are going with this, because the point was that "liberalizing" a country is not a sign by itself of pursuing an idealistic cause. Reversing the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry would be liberalizing their economic policy, but it also gave U.S. oil companies a considerable stake where they previously had none.
I think U.S. foreign policy had nothing to do with making the world freer and definitely hasn't made it less violent. Prosperity is the result of scientific advances rather than foreign policy.
We were more than responsible for it, it was a desired consequence of U.S. actions. Zbigniew Brzezinski of the Carter Administration noted that U.S. support for mujahideen prior to the invasion was a major factor in the invasion and was cited as a pretext by the Soviets. When the invasion happened it allowed the U.S. to give the Soviets their Vietnam, those are Brzezinski's words.
Of course, it would seem we have very little intention of allowing that choice to be a real one:
Source: Wired
Let's not even talk about Karzai.
So that's your example? America's an empire because of Gitmo?
If you believe that one country invading another country is, somehow, indicative of being an Empire... Then, well, you're a lost cause.
A moot point. If less exploitation happened, for whatever reason, then you can debate intent all you want but idealistic results were accomplished. There is no difference between idealism and accomplishing idealistic ends.
US Foreign policy has had everything to do with making the world freer. Its intended aims may have not been that end. Yet the reality is that the world is freer, more prosperous, and more scientifically advanced because of the United States.
In spite of the fact that both Taraki's and Hafizullah Amin's political parties (the foci of contention) existed well before US involvement? The existence of Islamic "freedom fighters" has never been a reason for Soviet involvement.
You see ladies and gentlemen the U.S. was responsible for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, you heard it here first. Also, interesting to know, according to this guy the U.S. is responsible for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The more you know. :roll: Oh FYI the interview in which Zbigniew allegedly admitted to sending arms to the Mujahadeen is a fabrication, he never made those statements he maintains that no arms were sent until a week after the Soviets invaded and this assertion is easily verifiable because the records are open the accusation that he ever said that is not backed by the historical records and it just happens that the portion of the interview that he allegedly made these comments were not recorded or videotaped. Gee what a surprise.
So the arrest of political dissidents by Iraqi Federal police somehow proves that the U.S. didn't allow the Iraqi people to elect their own leadership? Ya Maliki sucks, but guess what, WE DIDN'T PUT HIM IN POWER, the Iraqi's did.
Uh, I never said anywhere that we provided them with weapons, and indeed as you can observe in that video it is more the reporter's confusion about the previous interview bringing this response. It is convenient that we both found this video. I had known of the interview with the French paper but just found the video today as well. I am sure you watched the whole thing including the parts about Robert Gates' book right? You know, where they say before the Soviets invaded they gave weapons to Pakistan so that Pakistan could give the weapons to the mujahideen. I was actually under the impression that our support was non-material, but apparently we were arming them before the Soviets invaded as well, just not directly.
It doesn't matter if the Iraqi people voted him in, he is beholden to the U.S. because of things like this, not to mention the huge military presence we have there.
A) U.S. arms were not sent to the Mujahadeen until after the Soviets invaded, that is the assertion of both Gates and Zbigniew. At the time the U.S. was lending financial aid to the rebels the Soviets already had special forces and advisers operating in Afghanistan and was providing the Communist government with substantial finances and arms.
B) Even if we did provide material aid to the Mujahadeen before the Soviet Union invaded (which we didn't as the historical record proves beyond question) how does that justify a Soviet invasion? Did the Mujahadeen pose any threat whatsoever to the Soviet Union? Absolutely not.
C) Were you really trying to assert that non-material aid to the Mujahadeen by the U.S. caused or justified the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? If that's the case then I'm sure that you blame the Soviet Union for U.S. invasion of Vietnam.
Wait, so Iraqi Federal Police arresting political dissidents makes Maliki beholden to the U.S.?
It makes sense the Soviets would assist the Afghan government as Afghanistan sat right on their border. Also, as I already pointed out Gates explicitly mentions in his book sending weapons to Pakistan so that Pakistan can send them to the mujahideen. It is in the very video you put up here! Indeed, there is some evidence indicating U.S. support went back even further to 1978.
It wasn't a matter of them posing a threat,
though they rationally posed a greater threat than pretty much any country we invaded, because in the end it was widely expected that the Soviets would intervene as a result of our actions.
The Soviets didn't invade every country we supported and neither did the U.S. invade every country the Soviets supported. Most U.S. invasions were in the Americas at this time and by the same token the Soviets generally only invaded countries in their immediate vicinity. Any involvement by the U.S. would be seen as a pretext for invasion.
The U.S. helping him and covering for him does.
A) That wasn't in the video I posted, source?
In 1978 the United States began training insurgents and directing propaganda broadcasts into Afghanistan from Pakistan.
B) Once again by the time the U.S. had started financing the Afghan Mujahadeen the Soviets had advisors and special advisors in Afghanistan and were providing the Communists with substantial funding and military aid.
Really so the Soviets were justified in invading Afghanistan even though the Mujahadeen posed absolutely 0 threat to them?
Ya Afghanistan posed a much more serious threat than the North Vietnamese whose success led directly to the fall of Laos and Cambodia to Communism.
But tell me do you support the U.S. intervention in South East Asia, or does funding guerilla movements only justify invasion when it's the U.S. doing the funding?
Yes the U.S. covering for him in U.S. rather than Iraqi circles proves that he wasn't elected by the Iraqi people.
Wait, which part. Do you mean the part where I pointed out that Gates said the U.S. sent weapons to Pakistan for Pakistan to send to the mujahideen? That was definitely in the video and I am not going to baby you as far as where it is in the video. If you mean the last part then:
Source: Wikipedia
That part comes from the book Blank Check: The Pentagon’s Black Budget. Here is an online source which also states this: America's Afghanistan war: the ... - Google Books
The Soviets had people in Afghanistan for decades.
Are you saying a group of radical Muslim militants organizing to oppose a global power by any means necessary poses no threat?
I'm not sure if you've looked at a map recently but the U.S. doesn't border Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia.
I never said it justified invasion.
However, we knew the S
Actually, the point was that we prop up his government and let him crack down on dissent with impunity. I could get into the nature of Iraq's election, but why should it matter when the U.S. happily sits by and lets the leader of the country go after dissidents?
A) The historical record proves beyond any contention that financial aid to the rebels was not authorized in any way until 1979 after the Soviets already had Special Forces and advisors in Afghanistan.
B) The portion in the video referring to arms shipments to Pakistan for the rebels before the Soviet invasion quoted from Gates' book says it was a policy option, it never says that policy was implemented.
C) Both Gates and Zbigniew maintain that lethal arms were not provided until after the formal Soviet invasion, that is what the video says.
They had special forces operating militarily in Afghanistan at the time U.S. financial aid was authorized to the rebels in 1979, arms were not authorized until after the formal Soviet invasion.
Foreign mujahadeen didn't enter the picture until after the Soviet invasion, this was a domestic insurgency against the Afghanistan Communist government and then against the Soviet invasion forces, the indiginious Mujahadeen had no aspirations outside of Afghanistan.
So what?
So then the Soviet aid to the North Vietnamese caused the U.S. invasion of Vietnam then?
Finish your thoughts.
This is in no way contradictory to my statement between the assertion that the difference between the British and American occupation of Iraq is that the British didn't grant popular sovererignty to the Iraqi people; furthermore, the Iraqi elections were registered free and fair by outside international observers.
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?