Is There an American Empire, Yes or No.

[ecofarm]

I put it down man, explain it to me then.

I’m all ears.

Development is about the demographic transition. That transition is about education and healthcare for women. The way women are treated is reflected in ecology according to anthropological norms. In empowering women, we empower better ecological management.

That's missing plenty but it should give you an idea of why I want to invade countries. I seek development unfettered by genocidal dictators.

I'm not a nationalist. I'm a globalist. See signature.


PS. I don't think US foreign policy is perfect. In fact, it's only recently defendable.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Development is about the demographic transition. That transition is about education and healthcare for women. The way women are treated is reflected in ecology according to anthropological norms. In empowering women, we empower better ecological management.

That's missing plenty but it should give you an idea of why I want to invade countries. I seek development unfettered by genocidal dictators.

I'm not a nationalist. I'm a globalist. See signature.

PS. I don't think the US is perfect. In fact, it's only recently defendable.

It is more than not perfect and is largely still not defendable, sorry about that but if I understand your view here... is do you wanna Invade nations and impose your sense of how things should be on it?

I’d call that a classic case of “road to hell, good intentions” and all that, yes, ideally if we could get rid of all dictators tomorrow and install these egalitarian governments in their place and everything would be hunky dory, then I suppose that’d be alright.

But there’s an imperialist attitude in that, that you may not understand you’re holding, change around some words and perhaps some Gentry, never witnessing the Actual conduct of their colonial armies, were thinking their nations were doing across the seas.

 

[ecofarm]

It is more than not perfect and is largely still not defendable, sorry about that but if I understand your view here... is do you wanna Invade nations and impose your sense of how things should be on it?

I’d call that a classic case of “road to hell, good intentions” and all that, yes, ideally if we could get rid of all dictators tomorrow and install these egalitarian governments in their place and everything would be hunky dory, then I suppose that’d be alright.

But there’s an imperialist attitude in that, that you may not understand you’re holding, change around some words and perhaps some Gentry, never witnessing the Actual conduct of their colonial armies, were thinking their nations were doing across the seas.

We can go back in history to condemn any country.

Today, America is certainly not an empire. It's the opposite, a liberator.

 

[Jetboogieman]

We can go back in history to condemn any country.

Today, America is certainly not an empire. It's the opposite, a liberator.

That is just not true by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[ecofarm]

That is just not true by any stretch of the imagination.

Maybe you need to review what empire means. They don't install sovereign democracies.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Maybe you need to review what empire means. They don't install sovereign democracies.

Oh boy.

The Afghan and Iraqi governments are facades, mirages, they are not sovereign democracies and are only in nominal control of the country and not something America is all that concerned with.

If tomorrow a strongman popped up in both countries that could bring the whole nation to heel, would align with American interests and allow American companies to come in and exploit their resources... someone like Saudi Arabia, they’ll jump at the chance, most American policy makers don’t give a damn in the grand scheme of things about the progress of women in Afghanistan that you’ve spoken of before.

You’re living in la la land if you believe otherwise.

 

[ecofarm]

Oh boy.

The Afghan and Iraqi governments are facades, mirages, they are not sovereign democracies and are only in nominal control of the country and not something America is all that concerned with.

If tomorrow a strongman popped up in both countries that could bring the whole nation to heel, would align with American interests and allow American companies to come in and exploit their resources... someone like Saudi Arabia, they’ll jump at the chance, most American policy makers don’t give a damn in the grand scheme of things about the progress of women in Afghanistan that you’ve spoken of before.

You’re living in la la land if you believe otherwise.

Over seventy women have been elected to provincial offices in Afghanistan. Before the war, women were not allowed to learn to read.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Over seventy women have been elected to provincial offices in Afghanistan. Before the war, women were not allowed to learn to read.

Improving the lives and opportunities of women is a nice side effect and change can come slow in conservative societies, but it is not the primary focus of any means of the US presence in Afghanistan.

But if tomorrow the aforementioned scenario occurred and that person would undo all that progress, that would not be of particular concern to US policy makers, perhaps a press release stating the “The State Department is deeply concerned about the state of womens rights in Afghanistan and will continue to raise the issue through bilateral dialogue in order to further the United States desire to see enhanced rights for women in Afghanistan and around the world” and then that staffer goes home for the day, a job well done.

You are wearing some mega rosy glasses of how the United States and foreign policy in general is actually thought about and enacted and your one sentence replies of just vague platitudes aren’t really helping your case.

Explain to me if you think I’m wrong, debate me, how do you, in detail think foreign policy operates?

 

[ecofarm]

Improving the lives and opportunities of women is a nice side effect and change can come slow in conservative societies, but it is not the primary focus of any means of the US presence in Afghanistan.

Development is the purpose. Empowering women is the most effective and efficient means of that. Those women being elected is exactly our goal.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Development is the purpose. Empowering women is the most effective and efficient means of that. Those women being elected is exactly our goal.

Look mate, I’m more than happy to be proven wrong in anything but you’re really not debating the matter at hand, you’re just serving up vague platitudes that ignore the issue at how the United States as the premier superpower at this time, runs an unofficial global empire, one that is administered through the use of force projection and economics in the furtherance of whatever the current geo-political objectives demand.

You’re just serving up nonsense so, you have fun with that.

 

[ecofarm]

Look mate, I’m more than happy to be proven wrong in anything but you’re really not debating the matter at hand, you’re just serving up vague platitudes that ignore the issue at how the United States as the premier superpower at this time, runs an unofficial global empire, one that is administered through the use of force projection and economics in the furtherance of whatever the current geo-political objectives demand.

You’re just serving up nonsense so, you have fun with that.

Highlighting the astounding development that's taken place in Afghanistan, development that was the plan all along and impossible before the war, is changing the subject. Okay.

 

[cpwill]

That is just not true by any stretch of the imagination.

Oh I can make that argument with very little stretching at all.

The Afghan and Iraqi governments are facades, mirages, they are not sovereign democracies and are only in nominal control of the country and not something America is all that concerned with.

If tomorrow a strongman popped up in both countries that could bring the whole nation to heel, would align with American interests and allow American companies to come in and exploit their resources... someone like Saudi Arabia, they’ll jump at the chance, most American policy makers don’t give a damn in the grand scheme of things about the progress of women in Afghanistan that you’ve spoken of before.

You’re living in la la land if you believe otherwise.

Ah. So actual reality doesn't count because in a hypothetical which you made up in your head, the imaginary American politicians you described behaved differently.

Okedoke.


Is America a "soft" empire in a way that doesn't meet the definitions of the OP? Eh. Maybe it was/still is - we're fading now, largely of self-inflicted wounds. But being powerful hardly means one cannot also be loyal to enlightenment ideals.

 

[Drawdown]

Is Modern-Day America an empire or not? I say yes. Others say adamantly no. Let's hash this out.

The definitions of empire according to the Oxford English Dictionary are:



Given those definitions and providing supporting proof can you answer the question to the satisfaction of others here?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Arguably that we have 50 states ruled over by DC makes us subjects to an empire.

 

[Evilroddy]

It is more than not perfect and is largely still not defendable, sorry about that but if I understand your view here... is do you wanna Invade nations and impose your sense of how things should be on it?

I’d call that a classic case of “road to hell, good intentions” and all that, yes, ideally if we could get rid of all dictators tomorrow and install these egalitarian governments in their place and everything would be hunky dory, then I suppose that’d be alright.

But there’s an imperialist attitude in that, that you may not understand you’re holding, change around some words and perhaps some Gentry, never witnessing the Actual conduct of their colonial armies, were thinking their nations were doing across the seas.

Jetboogieman:

I get the impression that ecofarm wants to remake the world in Artemis's vision and raise women's status and power to effect change in their own countries. I believe he reasons that they are more likely to better treat the Earth's biosphere because of their maternal instincts to preserve and protect life. He wants to socially engineer the world by empowering the women of the world with greater social, economic and political in the hope they will think like Western environmentalists and care givers from the West.

It seems ecofarm would like to replace the old imperial notion of "the White Man's Burden" used to justify the often brutal and self serving civilising of the benighted global hinterland with the new (imperial?) notion of "the White Woman's Burden", to ecologise the benighted global hinterland and to save us from ourselves. While I agree that raising the station of women is key to nudging the world to a more sustainable developmental pathway, this still smacks of imperial hubris and the arrogance that we know best; when we expect that women raised from poverty and social inferiority in foreign lands will think and have the same priorities as women of the West with respect to the environment. Every Indian girl in poverty is not a Rachel Carson, Greta Thunberg or a Naomi Kline in the rough. You're more likely to get legions of women like Vandana Shiva who will rip the West a whole bunch of new arse holes as they remake the world in their images (which would not be bad in my opinion). Just more imperial thinking dressed up in a new frock.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

Oh I can make that argument with very little stretching at all.



Ah. So actual reality doesn't count because in a hypothetical which you made up in your head, the imaginary American politicians you described behaved differently.

Okedoke.


Is America a "soft" empire in a way that doesn't meet the definitions of the OP? Eh. Maybe it was/still is - we're fading now, largely of self-inflicted wounds. But being powerful hardly means one cannot also be loyal to enlightenment ideals.

cpwill:

Well the Iraqi democracy is working out well these days. They're gunning down protesters who have had it up to here with the kleptocracy of the Iraqi regime. Hundreds killed in a few days. Afghanistan as a killing zone is doing well too. Guatemala, Columbia, Ecuador, Honduras, Africa under AFRICOM's tender administrations, Indonesia, all shining examples of the enlightenment pollinated by the American commercial empire and benign US foreign policy.

The American republic does encapsulate great ideals of enlightenment and humanism, but alas those ideals are abstract and dying on the twin altars of unenlightened greed and and insatiable power lust which have captured the American State and gestalt. Empire is draining your public coffers dry and the imperialists, their manipulative skills, their militarism and their mercenaries are coming home to roost as the American people are about to be forcefully colonised by their own militarised police, surveillance and security state to shore up the crumbling buttresses of contracting empire. Real democracy and empire can seldom coexist.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[bomberfox]

Our enemies in war become democracies and experience, for the first time (except Germany), self determination. That's not imperialism. Imperialism is the opposite of self determination. Empire and liberator are antonyms.

You are forgetting the long history of backing coups, training death squads, and aiding the installation of fascist dictatorships.

 

[ecofarm]

You are forgetting the long history of backing coups, training death squads, and aiding the installation of fascist dictatorships.

We can do the "long history" thing and thereby declare every country an empire. What's the point?

Is America an empire? No. Liberating people from genocidal dictators and helping install democracy with human rights is not imperialism. What kind of sophomoric Che-tshirt pathetic idiot kid garbage is it to play "evil empire". I like RATM as much as the next guy, but let's be grown ups with a tiny bit of perspective.

 

[bomberfox]

Nor is the aid the CIA provided in support of the dictatorship that followed, and the conspiracy that occurred prior.



Which specific acts of war or aggression did Allende partake in that would make 'peaceful' as a descriptor a joke?

What of American involvement in and manipulation of foreign elections, including the Chile elections?

What of American support for horrific and unsavoury allies of convenience all over the world, many of which could be considered terrorists and performed acts of terrorism? Iran Contra? Afghanistan Taliban?

What of the direct, extensive and ongoing American involvement in Allende's overthrow? Their support for Pinochet and his military coup/dictatorship both before and after the war?

The bottom line is that Allende was elected (despite attempts at electoral manipulation on all sides), he didn't oppress his people, he didn't wage war or engage in acts of aggression, and the CIA banked and backed an unlawful armed military coup that then transitioned into a brutal dictatorship, and it did this in pursuit of American economic interests and expansion of its sphere of influence. It is completely inexcusable from any ethical standpoint.

Hell if ive been reading right, even the military commanders of Chile were at first uneasy with the coup because the military was not to interfere in democratic elections.

 

[bomberfox]

We can do the "long history" thing and thereby declare every country an empire. What's the point?

Is America an empire? No. Liberating people from genocidal dictators and helping install democracy with human rights is not imperialism. What kind of sophomoric Che-tshirt pathetic idiot kid garbage is it to play "evil empire". I like RATM as much as the next guy, but let's be grown ups with a tiny bit of perspective.

It is relevant for your disregard for such history as you even included Germany which our involvement in liberation from Nazi rule fits within the timeline from then to present also includes what i am referring to. You also were leaving out the countries we ruined from the picture. Who is the one dismissing the broader picture here?

 

[ecofarm]

It is relevant for your disregard for such history.

You believe declaring a country an empire today based on history is legitimate?

It's not. It could be done to every country. That renders your claim meaningless.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Oh I can make that argument with very little stretching at all.

Well, I’m in the unenviable position of having this debate with someone who is a member of the United States military, you were in Iraq and I’m sure you don’t want to think you’re a cog in the wheel of an imperial machine, but know this much, I do not approach this through a “rah rah I hate America lens”.

It is merely what I believe I understand about the way the geo-politics game is played, the history of nations and the actions America takes and has taken in the past.

Ah. So actual reality doesn't count because in a hypothetical which you made up in your head, the imaginary American politicians you described behaved differently.

Okedoke.

While yes, hypotheticals can be an issue, what do you think is more important to the United States, the development of women’s rights in Afghanistan, or regional stability and security as well as US alignment?

If tomorrow someone could come in and just sort the nation out, regardless of the tactics used, what do you think the US would do?

You and I both know the Afghan central government is a corrupt ****show and few Afghans really believe in it, who really holds the power in Afghanistan?

Depends on where exactly we’re talking about doesn’t it, because it doesn’t really control a lot of the country.

The United States supports, arms and has just recently politically covered that exact character recently in Saudi Arabia and I was one of those to state that Trumps overall government stance and basically brushing it aside, would have happened under any administration, it’s just that the way he handled it from a personal perspective was about as bad as you would want, at least other Presidents would have done a better song and dance about being “deeply concerned” about the murder of Kashogi.

Is America a "soft" empire in a way that doesn't meet the definitions of the OP? Eh. Maybe it was/still is - we're fading now, largely of self-inflicted wounds. But being powerful hardly means one cannot also be loyal to enlightenment ideals.

But that’s all I’m saying, under some circumstances has America had a positive impact, of course and when there is significant domestic pressure on certain regimes such as South Africa who the US supported for awhile before it became politically untenable because we were fighting the Cubans/Soviets in Angola, but it has been party to some pretty bad stuff, the Vietnam and Iraq wars in my opinion being disasters and I mean for god sake just to spite Vietnam it supported the Khmer Rouge, one of the worst regimes in the history of the world, that was awhile ago sure, but the thing is strategic and geopolitical circumstances come first, before consideration of human rights, America and other powers have proved that time and time again.

 

[bomberfox]

It's cute that you're such a super cynic about foreign intervention, but you're not the only benevolent person in America.

Thats not what was said. The thing people are trying to get across to you is the truth is far more ugly and the costs of our actions should never just be hand waved away.

 

[bomberfox]

It is an "If by whiskey" question....

If by empire you mean a traditional empire of territories and client states the answer is no. Not since the early 1900s.

If by the empire you are going with the varied new interpretations of empire that have little to do with the original definition then an argument can be made. Especially in the late 1940s to early 1960s. We were in the unique position of being a super power and the only major industrial country not digging itself out from the ruin of WWII. Many nations of the world were more than happy to join the gravy train. Others wished to be shielded from the scare of communism.

It can be said the "new" empire was one of persuasion rather than invasion.

This is a pretty good post.

 

[bomberfox]

Development is about the demographic transition. That transition is about education and healthcare for women. The way women are treated is reflected in ecology according to anthropological norms. In empowering women, we empower better ecological management.

That's missing plenty but it should give you an idea of why I want to invade countries. I seek development unfettered by genocidal dictators.

I'm not a nationalist. I'm a globalist. See signature.


PS. I don't think US foreign policy is perfect. In fact, it's only recently defendable.

People are going by what you post here. If you dont include any ecofeminist perspective in these posts its very dishonest to suddenly pop it up out of the blue. Your argument so far in here is without nuance at all.

 

[bomberfox]

cpwill:

Well the Iraqi democracy is working out well these days. They're gunning down protesters who have had it up to here with the kleptocracy of the Iraqi regime. Hundreds killed in a few days. Afghanistan as a killing zone is doing well too. Guatemala, Columbia, Ecuador, Honduras, Africa under AFRICOM's tender administrations, Indonesia, all shining examples of the enlightenment pollinated by the American commercial empire and benign US foreign policy.

The American republic does encapsulate great ideals of enlightenment and humanism, but alas those ideals are abstract and dying on the twin altars of unenlightened greed and and insatiable power lust which have captured the American State and gestalt. Empire is draining your public coffers dry and the imperialists, their manipulative skills, their militarism and their mercenaries are coming home to roost as the American people are about to be forcefully colonised by their own militarised police, surveillance and security state to shore up the crumbling buttresses of contracting empire. Real democracy and empire can seldom coexist.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

This. Even today we are seeing the death of humanism precisely because we have excused away our failures.