Is There an American Empire, Yes or No.

[Evilroddy]

hello Roddy.



I've read it. The suggestion of illegality is dependent on A) a SOFA being a Treaty - which it isn't and B) no Nigerien troops being involved -but they are.

Which is what I said to you in the post you quoted



Not at all. For example, we had no problem with Iraqi Security Forces killing any Americans who went to join ISIS, nor did Canada, or the U.K., or any other nation (in fact, frankly, everyone hoped that is precisely what would happen, as those bastards dying on the battlefield was much simpler than trying to figure out what to do with them if they surrendered). Pakistan uses us to achieve it's own ends where our ends overlap with theirs, and has American blood on its hands elsewhere, where it's ends contradict our own, both of which give the lie to the claim that we are somehow secretly controlling the Pakistani government to achieve our ends against their own interests.



No. We have responsibility for what we do, not for what others do; and those Colombian military forces fought the FARC standstill, pushed them back, and have largely ended a reign of terror that swept that nation. Complaining both that the United States opposes corrupt and wicked governments, overriding national sovereignty, and that the United States does not oppose corrupt and wicked governments, is hypocritical. The only consistent thread is that, whatever the United States has decided to do, you seek to criticize it by blaming it for whatever negative consequences occur :shrug:

cpwill:

Hello again.

I respectfully disagree with your argument regard the Agadez Base 201's legality under Niger's laws and constitution. One, you say SOFAs are not treaties and yet the Status of Forces Agreement for Niger is listed by the US State Department as a treaty; (see p. 328 of the document linked below). Furthermore it does not really matter how the US categorises a SOFA as Niger's law is at work here so the important definition must come from Niger's jurists.

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019-TIF-Bilaterals-6.13.2019-web-version.pdf

The constitution of Niger states that no foreign troops may be involved in the defence of Nigeria. Should the base at Agedez or any other of the smaller bases and forward operation "positions" be threatened by hostile forces, Americans in those bases would be defending Niger's territory while defending themselves and thus the presence in Niger of armed US troops is indeed in contravention to the constitution of Niger.

Extrajudicial killing is illegal and a crime. The fact that it has happened does not change that principle. If you argue that these killings were an act of war then show me the Congressional declaration of war which created a state of war. Do not try to use the 2001 AUMF as your justification because that was for organisations directly related to the attacks of September 11 like al-Qaeda is alleged to have been. ISIL had nothing to do with those attacks and therefore does not fall under the AUMF.

No. Vicarious responsibility and liability fall upon US Special Forces and the Government of the USA for the actions of US-trained military and paramilitary forces, for the criminal acts which those US-trained forces perpetrate, because your trainers gave them the means, the knowledge and the skills to successfully commit and disguise the atrocities which they did. I am a teacher. If I teach a student (even an adult student) how to make powerful explosives from scratch, how to build a fragmentation bomb or how to collect and weaponise anthrax spores from infected fields or how to create risen from seed oils, I will be held responsible and jointly liable for whatever havoc that student causes. Even if the student does nothing I can and likely will be prosecuted for simply teaching it to him or her. Same goes for military trainers. The only difference is I don't have a powerful security state to protect me from prosecution through secrecy, non-cooperation, a refusal to accept international courts' jurisdictions and the threats of former national security advisor, John Bolton, that the US will use any and all means up to military force to prevent the prosecution of its own or allied military and civilian leaders alleged to have committed crimes.

So I respectfully disagree with your claims of no responsibility and no liability. If you give a mad man a gun and the training to use it well while evading detection and capture or killing, then you own the injuries which that mad man perpetrates and are criminally liable and civilly jointly and severally liable for the harms he does.

Alas empires put themselves above the laws of the hinterland and abjure responsibility for the harms of their proxies or their own agents. So it has been and so it will always be while empires hold sway.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[cpwill]

cpwill:

Hello again.

howdy.

I respectfully disagree with your argument regard the Agadez Base 201's legality under Niger's laws and constitution. One, you say SOFAs are not treaties and yet the Status of Forces Agreement for Niger is listed by the US State Department as a treaty; (see p. 328 of the document linked below). Furthermore it does not really matter how the US categorises a SOFA as Niger's law is at work here so the important definition must come from Niger's jurists.

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019-TIF-Bilaterals-6.13.2019-web-version.pdf

:shrug: your claim is incorrect. You mayhaps should have read the title of the document: "A List of Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States in Force on January 1, 2019"

A SOFA agreement is not a Treaty. There is a reason why even the article you cited depends on waffle words such as "May" and "according to opposition activists", and the like. Because they cannot cite actual international law on the matter, because law does not defend that claim.

The constitution of Niger states that no foreign troops may be involved in the defence of Nigeria. Should the base at Agedez or any other of the smaller bases and forward operation "positions" be threatened by hostile forces, Americans in those bases would be defending Niger's territory while defending themselves and thus the presence in Niger of armed US troops is indeed in contravention to the constitution of Niger.

:shrug: Putting aside the point that you are incorrect regarding "defending Niger's territory" (as this is a CT mission, not beating back a conventional invasion), this is also an incorrect reading of the text. Constitution of Niger

- Article 66: The Nigerien armed forces [Forces Armée Nigériennes (FAN)] assure the defense of the integrity of the national territory against all external aggression and participate, by the side of the other forces, in the preservation of peace and security, in accordance with the laws and regulations in force. They participate in the work of economic and social development of the Nation and may exercise the responsibilities corresponding to their competences and qualifications.
- Article 168: The President of the Republic negotiates and ratifies the international treaties and agreements.​

So, the President is in charge of negotiating and ratifying international agreements - such as involving Status of Forces - and the military is charged with defense of the territory against external aggression and working alongside other forces in preserving the peace.

IOW, the Constitution not only explicitly allows for forces other than the Nigerien armed forces to be involved, it assigns the Presidency the responsibility of handling the relevant negotiations.

:shrug: If, however, Nigerien Opposition Activists think it contradicts their own Constitution (and, this would be interesting to see, since I don't see you citing similar arguments made against French or the forces of other African nations in Niger), then when and if they win the Presidency, they can change it. Alternately, there is a Constitutional override mechanism they can pursue:

- Article 170: If the Constitutional Court referred to the matter by the President of the Republic, by the president of the National Assembly, by the Prime Minister or by one-tenth (1/10) of the Deputies, has declared that an international agreement contains a clause contrary to the Constitution, the authorization to ratify it can only intervene after revision of the Constitution.
​

And yet, this hasn't occurred. Apparently they can't even get a tenth of the Deputies to sign on to this notion that, suddenly, the Constitution's giving the Nigerien armed forces the role of working with others means that they can't work with others.

The work we do with the Nigeriens (and the Nigerians, and the Tunisians, and others) to counter violent extremism in Northern and Western Africa does not violate the law. Sorry to bust your bubble. :shrug:

 

[cpwill]

Extrajudicial killing is illegal and a crime.

Sometimes. When one is at war (for one example) it is not. For example, during our civil war, Union troops killed Rebel troops without putting them on trial all the time. Ditto for when we get into gunfights with the Taliban, or for when we shot, bombed, stabbed, and burned Imperial Japanese.

If you argue that these killings were an act of war then show me the Congressional declaration of war which created a state of war. Do not try to use the 2001 AUMF as your justification because that was for organisations directly related to the attacks of September 11 like al-Qaeda is alleged to have been. ISIL had nothing to do with those attacks and therefore does not fall under the AUMF.

:shrug: you are incorrect on at least two accounts:
1. ISIS is an AQ offshoot
2. AQ leadership in Pakistan is definitely related to AQ.

Though I appreciate that you have abandoned the indefensible claim that the Pakistani government was allowing us to control their public policy for our own interests and against their own (though you lacked the fortitude to admit it), the notion that schwacking AQ leadership in Pakistan isn't related to attacking AQ is...... let us say not very solid.

Now, if you want to say that the AUMF is a bit dated, and we should probably release an updated version spelling out precisely what Congress's intent is, well, I agree. They should definitely do so. Until then, the President remains charged (and equipped) to deploy forces against those groups in order to head off threats to the West.

Vicarious responsibility and liability fall upon US Special Forces and the Government of the USA for the actions of US-trained military and paramilitary forces, for the criminal acts which those US-trained forces perpetrate

:shrug: no it doesn't, any more than Canada has liability for the later atrocities of forces it trains with, or any other nation. You are responsible for what you do. This includes areas where you are on an advise/assist/accompany mission, and areas where you encourage action. It does not include areas where you are not involved.

I am a teacher. If I teach a student (even an adult student) how to make powerful explosives from scratch, how to build a fragmentation bomb or how to collect and weaponise anthrax spores from infected fields or how to create risen from seed oils, I will be held responsible and jointly liable for whatever havoc that student causes. Even if the student does nothing I can and likely will be prosecuted for simply teaching it to him or her

That is a fascinating claim. So, if I were to rent a truck and drive it into a crowd of people, my Drivers Ed teacher can be sued?

Can you cite that law?

Same goes for military trainers.

:shrug: this is also incorrect, and an area I have a little familiarity with. Military trainers are not legally liable for atrocities committed by anyone who has ever been through a joint exercise or training course. For example, should we abandon Afghanistan, and the forces we trained make the rational decision to switch sides and join the Taliban, Canada's military personnel would not then become legally liable for human rights abuses committed by Taliban forces of which those individuals were a part.

So I respectfully disagree with your claims of no responsibility and no liability.

Fortunately, in this area, it does not matter if you (or I) agree or not.

 

[Evilroddy]

howdy.



:shrug: your claim is incorrect. You mayhaps should have read the title of the document: "A List of Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States in Force on January 1, 2019"

A SOFA agreement is not a Treaty.

- Article 66: The Nigerien armed forces [Forces Armée Nigériennes (FAN)] assure the defense of the integrity of the national territory against all external aggression and participate, by the side of the other forces, in the preservation of peace and security, in accordance with the laws and regulations in force. They participate in the work of economic and social development of the Nation and may exercise the responsibilities corresponding to their competences and qualifications.
- Article 168: The President of the Republic negotiates and ratifies the international treaties and agreements.​

So, the President is in charge of negotiating and ratifying international agreements - such as involving Status of Forces - and the military is charged with defense of the territory against external aggression and working alongside other forces in preserving the peace.

IOW, the Constitution not only explicitly allows for forces other than the Nigerien armed forces to be involved, it assigns the Presidency the responsibility of handling the relevant negotiations.

- Article 170: If the Constitutional Court referred to the matter by the President of the Republic, by the president of the National Assembly, by the Prime Minister or by one-tenth (1/10) of the Deputies, has declared that an international agreement contains a clause contrary to the Constitution, the authorization to ratify it can only intervene after revision of the Constitution.
​

And yet, this hasn't occurred. Apparently they can't even get a tenth of the Deputies to sign on to this notion that, suddenly, the Constitution's giving the Nigerien armed forces the role of working with others means that they can't work with others.

The work we do with the Nigeriens (and the Nigerians, and the Tunisians, and others) to counter violent extremism in Northern and Western Africa does not violate the law. Sorry to bust your bubble. :shrug:

Edited for word count.

cpwill:

I can find no non-US source which says a SOFA is not a treaty. I can only find a couple of US sources which state that a SOFA is not a full military agreement. So please cite me a non-US source to verify your assertion that a SOFA is not a treaty. The reason I ask for a non-US source is because this may be an American distinction which other states or international organisations don't necessarily agree with. To me international agreements are treaties and when one looks at the definitions of both, one finds very similar definitions.

Regarding Article 66 of Niger's Constitution it reads, "The Nigerien armed forces [Forces Armée Nigériennes (FAN)] assure the defense of the integrity of the national territory against all external aggression..." and then says "and" to connect a second responsibility with the first. The FAN is solely in charge of protecting the territorial integrity of Niger and (second distinct point) it can participate with other nations' forces in protecting peace and security. You are conflating two distinct powers. My position still stands.

As for your citation of Article 168 of the constitution about the powers of the president with respect to treaties there are certain types of treaties which are excluded from the president's sole purview. Article 169 says:

Article 169
The treaties of defense and peace, the treaties and agreements relative to the international organizations, those which modify the internal laws of the State and those which involve a financial engagement from the State, may only be ratified following a law authorizing their ratification.

It says,"may only be ratified by law" which means the legislative body L'assemble Nationale must ratify any treaty of defense, peace or any treaty which will modify the internal laws of Niger, which a SOFA would do. The Agadez base treaty does 2 out of three of those things and involves financial engagement of Niger too, alienating land. building roads, etc.

So where do we stand? Your claim that a SOFA is not a treaty is unproven. I have failed to decisively prove that a SOFA is a treaty but cannot find confirmation that it is not. We disagree on the wording of article 66 regarding defence of the realm and we cite different articles of the constitution concerning ratification of treaties.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[cpwill]

Edited for word count.

cpwill:

I can find no non-US source which says a SOFA is not a treaty. I can only find a couple of US sources which state that a SOFA is not a full military agreement. So please site me a non-US source to verify your assertion that a SOFA is not a treaty. The reason I ask for a non-US source is because this may be an American distinction which other states or international organisations don't necessarily agree with. To me international agreements are treaties and when one looks at the definitions of both, one finds very similar definitions.

Regarding Article 66 of Niger's Constitution it reads, "The Nigerien armed forces [Forces Armée Nigériennes (FAN)] assure the defense of the integrity of the national territory against all external aggression..." and then says and to connect a second responsibility with the first. The FAN is solely in charge of protecting the territorial integrity of Niger and (second distinct point it can participate with other nations' forces in protecting peace and security. You are conflating two distinct powers.

As for your citation of Article 168 of the constitution about the powers of the president with respect to treaties there are certain types of treaties which are excluded from the president's sole purview. Article 169 says:



It says,"may only be ratified by law" which means the legislative body L'assemblie Nationale must ratify ay treaty of defense, peace or of an treaty which will modify the internal laws of Niger. The Agadez base treaty does 2 out of three of those things and involves financial engagement of Niger too, alienating land. building roads, etc.

So where do we stand? Your claim that a SOFA is not a treaty is unproven. I have failed to decisively prove that a SOFA is a treaty but cannot find confirmation that it is not. We disagree on the wording of article 66 regarding defence of the realm and we cite different articles of the constitution concerning ratification of treaties.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Ah. So every source you can find tells you that a SOFA is not a treaty, so you reject it, because....... you do not wish it to be true?

Status of Forces Agreement is the name of the agreement that the United States signs with other nations when we are sending troops into their lands - it spells out precisely what legal protections and duties exist for both sides, and when. It allows us to train with allies (example: I was under SOFA status when participating in training exercises in the Philippines regarding Humanitarian Assistance during Disaster Relief operations).

While the United States military has the largest foreign presence and therefore accounts for most SOFAs, the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain, and many other nations also station military forces abroad and negotiate SOFAs with their host countries.
​

This is common. They can be in reference to (and even nested under) a mutual defense treaty (such as our arrangement with South Korea, Japan, Australia, etc.). They are not, however, a treaty in and of themselves.

Respectfully, if every source you can find is telling you that a SOFA isn't a treaty, maybe it would be better to recognize that your understanding of international agreements is imperfect, rather than insisting that the simpler definitions in your head in which everything is a treaty be controlling.

Article 66 in no way states that forces of other nations cannot enter Niger in conjunction with agreements with the Nigerien government; there is no forbidding text whatsoever and, in fact, language which clearly expects that the Nigerien armed forces will be doing so (which makes sense, since that Constitution was written when they were doing so). If you wish to argue that there is a secret, hidden, text that no one can read except those who believe it is there which does so, alright; feel free to encourage so much as a tenth of the Delegates to take up your cause (they haven't).

But until anyone discovers or writes in that language, the claim that it's illegal for (for example) forces from Nigeria to cooperate with forces from Niger in solving the common problem of Boko Haram remains unsupported.


Regards,
cpwill

 

[Evilroddy]

Sometimes. When one is at war (for one example) it is not. For example, during our civil war, Union troops killed Rebel troops without putting them on trial all the time. Ditto for when we get into gunfights with the Taliban, or for when we shot, bombed, stabbed, and burned Imperial Japanese.



:shrug: you are incorrect on at least two accounts:
1. ISIS is an AQ offshoot
2. AQ leadership in Pakistan is definitely related to AQ.

Though I appreciate that you have abandoned the indefensible claim that the Pakistani government was allowing us to control their public policy for our own interests and against their own (though you lacked the fortitude to admit it), the notion that schwacking AQ leadership in Pakistan isn't related to attacking AQ is...... let us say not very solid.

Now, if you want to say that the AUMF is a bit dated, and we should probably release an updated version spelling out precisely what Congress's intent is, well, I agree. They should definitely do so. Until then, the President remains charged (and equipped) to deploy forces against those groups in order to head off threats to the West.



:shrug: no it doesn't, any more than Canada has liability for the later atrocities of forces it trains with, or any other nation. You are responsible for what you do. This includes areas where you are on an advise/assist/accompany mission, and areas where you encourage action. It does not include areas where you are not involved.



That is a fascinating claim. So, if I were to rent a truck and drive it into a crowd of people, my Drivers Ed teacher can be sued?

Can you cite that law?

Fortunately, in this area, it does not matter if you (or I) agree or not.

Edited for word count.

Hello cpwill:

I am rather busy tonight so I will be unable to keep up with you in post rate.

I will deal with your post in a different order than you wrote it for clarity's sake.

1) From the 2001 AUMF:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

ISIL played no role in the 9/11 attacks. Syria and Iraq played no role in the 9/11 attacks. Syria and Iraq did not harbour or give aid to those who carried out the 9/11 Attacks. ISIL never attacked the United States. Therefore the AUMF does not apply. It does not matter that ISIL broke away from AQ as the authorisation does not name al-Qaeda as a special case. It applies only to those states, organisations, and persons involved in the 9/11 attack. So you're wrong.

2) The US Civil War and the Pacific theatre of WWII were fully declared wars and you are talking about combat killings involving soldiers. In those two examples. I am talking about killing people (mostly civilians) in foreign countries without a declaration of war. Those are the extrajudicial killings to which I am referring. The number of civilians being killed by US middle and drone strikes is far greater than the number of targets being sought. Ratios of targets to civilian killed in strikes vary from 1:9 in the most conservative reports to as high as 1:50. Those 9-50 dead innocents are the extrajudicial killing I am most concerned with and any state which allows a foreign state to do that to its citizens is illegitimate and should be removed from power so that's its leaders can be prosecuted as accessories to murder.

3) I have not abandoned my position regarding US interests vs. Pakistani interests at all. You have made no argument to warrant such an abandonment. There is limited time and limited character space for me to debate you. Thus I will not restate positions unless they are effectively challenged. That in my opinion has not happened.

4) Not only is the 2001 AUMF dated but it also does not cover the wide spectrum of military operations which you have claimed. See the quote above.

5) By what authority do you absolve yourselves of legal and civil liability for your proxies and those you have trained? Prove that claim or it is just an opinion with no more weight than any other opinion. The doctrine of vicarious responsibility is a well estabilished legal principle in American and international law. You cannot just dismiss it out of hand.

6) The citation which you requested from US law. It's Canadian equivalent is much more restrictive.

https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20030908_RL32074_fcbf5a7d23f14b3350d4c2d81465aaaf7bcd299d.pdf

I will respond to the rest of this post tomorrow or Tuesday, as I have a lot on my plate at this time.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

Hi cpwill:

Ah. So every source you can find tells you that a SOFA is not a treaty, so you reject it, because....... you do not wish it to be true?

No. You misread or misinterpreted what I said. I said that I could find no non-American source which definitively said that a SOFA is not a treaty and could find only two American sources which said a SOFA is not a full military agreement. So again I ask you to provide a non-American source which supports your claim that a SOFA is not a treaty and that other states other than the US Government legally recognise that distinction.

Status of Forces Agreement is the name of the agreement that the United States signs with other nations when we are sending troops into their lands - it spells out precisely what legal protections and duties exist for both sides, and when. It allows us to train with allies (example: I was under SOFA status when participating in training exercises in the Philippines regarding Humanitarian Assistance during Disaster Relief operations).

While the United States military has the largest foreign presence and therefore accounts for most SOFAs, the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain, and many other nations also station military forces abroad and negotiate SOFAs with their host countries.
​

This is common. They can be in reference to (and even nested under) a mutual defense treaty (such as our arrangement with South Korea, Japan, Australia, etc.). They are not, however, a treaty in and of themselves.

Respectfully, if every source you can find is telling you that a SOFA isn't a treaty, maybe it would be better to recognize that your understanding of international agreements is imperfect, rather than insisting that the simpler definitions in your head in which everything is a treaty be controlling.

No source I have found says a SOFA is not a treaty. Since you made the claim please back it up with a reliable non-American source.

Article 66 in no way states that forces of other nations cannot enter Niger in conjunction with agreements with the Nigerien government; there is no forbidding text whatsoever and, in fact, language which clearly expects that the Nigerien armed forces will be doing so (which makes sense, since that Constitution was written when they were doing so). If you wish to argue that there is a secret, hidden, text that no one can read except those who believe it is there which does so, alright; feel free to encourage so much as a tenth of the Delegates to take up your cause (they haven't).

But until anyone discovers or writes in that language, the claim that it's illegal for (for example) forces from Nigeria to cooperate with forces from Niger in solving the common problem of Boko Haram remains unsupported.

Regards,
cpwill

I never argued that foreign troops could not enter Niger. I argued that if they were attacked by foreign forces while in Niger and used force to resist such attacks they would be in violation of Article 66 as only Niger's FAN is allowed to defend the territorial integrity of the country from attack. Foreign troops are allowed into Niger to support security and peace both in Niger (eg a UN Peacekeeping force) or regional security and peace outside of Niger's frontiers.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[American]

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.

When was it ever?

 

[charliebrown]

Yes, but it is weakening a little every day. History Repeats itself. you can see all of the Empires that went from dominance to mediocrity.

 

[Evilroddy]

When was it ever?

American:

America was a traditional territorial empire from about 1890 until about 1945. This empire remains but is largely vestigial when compared to what followed it.

In the aftermath of WWII and during the Cold War, America expanded globally its commercial empire, hitherto limited to Central America and the Caribbean Sea for the most part. This invisible commercial empire persists even today. It uses connections between persons (corporations are persons) transnational institutions (GATT/WTO, IMF/World Bank, NATO, the Petro-dollar system, the SWIFT banking system, etc.) to discipline and control foreign nations/states who are uncooperative in serving US interests. When this soft power does not work it uses raw economic force (sanctions, embargoes, resource denial, capital denial, etc.) and if necessary military force (blockades, military raids, fomenting insurrection, out-right military intervention, invasion) to change behaviours or to change regimes over to ones which will abandon or discount their own peoples' interests in order to better serve US interests. The commercial empire is much more powerful and lucrative than the territorial one ever was. Empire today is called military, economic and political hegemony but it still empire dressed up in a new set of clothes.

That's it in a nutshell.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[American]

American:

America was a traditional territorial empire from about 1890 until about 1945. This empire remains but is largely vestigial when compared to what followed it.

In the aftermath of WWII and during the Cold War, America expanded globally its commercial empire, hitherto limited to Central America and the Caribbean Sea for the most part. This invisible commercial empire persists even today. It uses connections between persons (corporations are persons) transnational institutions (GATT/WTO, IMF/World Bank, NATO, the Petro-dollar system, the SWIFT banking system, etc.) to discipline and control foreign nations/states who are uncooperative in serving US interests. When this soft power does not work it uses raw economic force (sanctions, embargoes, resource denial, capital denial, etc.) and if necessary military force (blockades, military raids, fomenting insurrection, out-right military intervention, invasion) to change behaviours or to change regimes over to ones which will abandon or discount their own peoples' interests in order to better serve US interests. The commercial empire is much more powerful and lucrative than the territorial one ever was. Empire today is called military, economic and political hegemony but it still empire dressed up in a new set of clothes.

That's it in a nutshell.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

That's a nutshell already, completely without context, but that's it.

 

[TheParser]

1. Yes, the United States of America has an empire.

a. That is, it has great influence over many other nations.

i. Without the U.S., Taiwan would now be another province of China.

ii. Without the U.S., North Korea might invade South Korea again.

iii. Without the U.S., NATO would have a fight on its hands if the Bear decided to attack.

iv. As the mess in Syria shows, the U.S. is critical to success or failure in the Middle East.

v. Without the U.S., Israel's survival might be in doubt.

vi. Without the U.S. willingly or unwillingly accepting its surplus population, Central America would be in a bigger mess than it already is.


The United States of America is the most important nation in the world. When it speaks, other nations go silent as they listen carefully.


Of course, just as the Spanish and British empires disintegrated, so will the American empire disintegrate as the United States limps into the 22nd century.

 

[joko104]

Yes, but a dying Empire destroying itself from within, ie the combination of:

1.) the richest people on earth taking control of the MSM, press and Internet to make it their corporate propaganda outlet for foreign slave-labor profits, trashing American wages by mass immigration and perpetual pro-war,
2.) the sedition, war and hate mongering, racist Democratic Party and
3.) the federal police state/intelligence community acting in collusion with #1 and #2 to fully take over the government.

As our empire dies and is taken over by others, so does our national wealth and security - both domestic and foreign.

 

[Evilroddy]

An interesting article on American Empire and political denial in the Democratic Party here:

Democrats Still Can’t Level With Voters About the U.S. Empire

Look, the U.S. is the center of the most powerful empire that’s ever existed. We’re not in the Mideast for moral reasons, like protecting the Kurds, so you can forget about that. We’re there to keep the oil flowing (even though any Mideast government will happily sell their oil to anyone buying), to get whatever profits we can for U.S. corporations and to make sure our Saudi friends recycle their profits back into the American economy.

We can protect people like the Kurds only with a massive enlargement of our empire. So if you care about them, get ready for much higher taxes and your kids dying in Rojava. Or we can get rid of our empire — in which case you better start thinking about how to restrain all the other countries who’d like to run the Mideast and care about the people there as much as we do. Or we can muddle along in our current half-assed fashion, in which we agree not to ask too much of you and you agree not to ask any tough questions. You tell us!

Not even the Democratic candidates for president can muster the courage to call the empire what it is. Denial is rampant in the upper echelons of the American body politic. Bipartisan self-delusion grips America with respect to militarism and empire.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Perotista]

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.

I think the U.S. has influence over a lot of countries. Influence in some areas, but not all. It certainly doesn't rule over them. Sometimes the U.S. gets cooperation and what it wants, sometimes not. I don't think having some influences in certain areas means an empire. That influence only goes so far as other countries think it is in their own best interest to cooperate.

 

[cpwill]

Hi cpwill:



No. You misread or misinterpreted what I said. I said that I could find no non-American source which definitively said that a SOFA is not a treaty and could find only two American sources which said a SOFA is not a full military agreement. So again I ask you to provide a non-American source which supports your claim that a SOFA is not a treaty and that other states other than the US Government legally recognise that distinction.



No source I have found says a SOFA is not a treaty. Since you made the claim please back it up with a reliable non-American source.



I never argued that foreign troops could not enter Niger. I argued that if they were attacked by foreign forces while in Niger and used force to resist such attacks they would be in violation of Article 66 as only Niger's FAN is allowed to defend the territorial integrity of the country from attack. Foreign troops are allowed into Niger to support security and peace both in Niger (eg a UN Peacekeeping force) or regional security and peace outside of Niger's frontiers.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

ER,

I apologize for this - while I note that no legal analysis supports your position, life has gotten busy, and I am unable to respond in kind . I will have to let you have the last word, and wish you well.

 

[Evilroddy]

ER,

I apologize for this - while I note that no legal analysis supports your position, life has gotten busy, and I am unable to respond in kind . I will have to let you have the last word, and wish you well.

cpwill:

Farewell, stay safe and keep your spirits high and your arse down low!

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Tigerace117]

An interesting article on American Empire and political denial in the Democratic Party here:

Democrats Still Can’t Level With Voters About the U.S. Empire



Not even the Democratic candidates for president can muster the courage to call the empire what it is. Denial is rampant in the upper echelons of the American body politic. Bipartisan self-delusion grips America with respect to militarism and empire.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Oh look, the same old lazy conspiracy theory about oil. Considering the US gets most of its non-domestic oil from places like Canada, Nigeria and Venezuela(where, gee, if it was really all about the oil we certainly would have intervened by now).

 

[Evilroddy]

Oh look, the same old lazy conspiracy theory about oil. Considering the US gets most of its non-domestic oil from places like Canada, Nigeria and Venezuela(where, gee, if it was really all about the oil we certainly would have intervened by now).

Tigerace117:

The US has been intervening in Venezuela with sanctions, embargoes, financial and economic warfare and even stealing Venezuelan funds from banks by proxy. If Canada was to decide to turn off the oil taps, let's say for environmental reasons, you can be sure that the US would be interfering in our elections and funding dissent in order to change a non-compliant government's behaviour right quick. But you are right to complain that too much emphasis is placed on oil. It's minerals in Afghanistan and Indonesia, it's minerals, market access, investment liberalism in South and Central America, it's agribusiness in Central America, it's shale gas, oil, minerals and crushing economic nationalism in Northern Africa. It's intellectual property law, technology control and other states playing by US inspired international trading rules in China. It's about defiance, economic nationalism and the growing influence of Iran plus it's challenges to Saudi and Israeli dominance in the greater Middle East region in the case of Iran. The list goes on, but the point has been made. Oil and the petro-dollars system is only one component (albeit an important one) of the US commercial empire.

Invasion or military intervention are only the last-tier steps in maintaining compliance within the empire's hinterland. Money, control of international financial systems, resource access and denial, control of the means of trade and shipping and a new kind of dollar diplomacy are the more usually used tools of American empire. Shooting is bad for business. Now it's inverting back in on itself too.

The same techniques which were once used to control the hinterland are now coming home to roost within the American heartland itself. The US Constitution and the principles of the US Republic are now under attack by the same forces and mechanisms which traditionally drove/drive empire abroad. America is morphing quickly into a security and surveillance state with increasingly militarised law enforcement organisations and mercenary PMSC (Private Military and Security Companies) using the tactics learned in the GWoT and the maintenance of empire to colonise the American people into the empire which has to date largely left them alone. Courts and both public and private prisons are now being filled with people who resist imperial commercial authority at home and to keep these dissidents quiet, communication management units (CMUs)!are being developed in the US private prison system. The Empire is turning inwards to consume its own soon to be redundant labour force as labour markets contract and labour surpluses grow, economically disenfranchising more and more Americans through globalisation and technology-caused structural unemployment.

Cheers and awaiting the usual insults and vitriol.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

An interesting article here about the tug o'war between empire and Liberty over 300 years of American and pre-American history. I am not sure that I agree with the thesis, but it is a fascinating read nonetheless.

Is America an Empire?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Tigerace117]

Tigerace117:

The US has been intervening in Venezuela with sanctions, embargoes, financial and economic warfare and even stealing Venezuelan funds from banks by proxy. If Canada was to decide to turn off the oil taps, let's say for environmental reasons, you can be sure that the US would be interfering in our elections and funding dissent in order to change a non-compliant government's behaviour right quick. But you are right to complain that too much emphasis is placed on oil. It's minerals in Afghanistan and Indonesia, it's minerals, market access, investment liberalism in South and Central America, it's agribusiness in Central America, it's shale gas, oil, minerals and crushing economic nationalism in Northern Africa. It's intellectual property law, technology control and other states playing by US inspired international trading rules in China. It's about defiance, economic nationalism and the growing influence of Iran plus it's challenges to Saudi and Israeli dominance in the greater Middle East region in the case of Iran. The list goes on, but the point has been made. Oil and the petro-dollars system is only one component (albeit an important one) of the US commercial empire.

Invasion or military intervention are only the last-tier steps in maintaining compliance within the empire's hinterland. Money, control of international financial systems, resource access and denial, control of the means of trade and shipping and a new kind of dollar diplomacy are the more usually used tools of American empire. Shooting is bad for business. Now it's inverting back in on itself too.

The same techniques which were once used to control the hinterland are now coming home to roost within the American heartland itself. The US Constitution and the principles of the US Republic are now under attack by the same forces and mechanisms which traditionally drove/drive empire abroad. America is morphing quickly into a security and surveillance state with increasingly militarised law enforcement organisations and mercenary PMSC (Private Military and Security Companies) using the tactics learned in the GWoT and the maintenance of empire to colonise the American people into the empire which has to date largely left them alone. Courts and both public and private prisons are now being filled with people who resist imperial commercial authority at home and to keep these dissidents quiet, communication management units (CMUs)!are being developed in the US private prison system. The Empire is turning inwards to consume its own soon to be redundant labour force as labour markets contract and labour surpluses grow, economically disenfranchising more and more Americans through globalisation and technology-caused structural unemployment.

Cheers and awaiting the usual insults and vitriol.
Evilroddy.

Sanctioning a government which has brutally abused its own people and whose ministers include drug traffickers is not “empire” in any way, shape or form. If Canada’s government had started starving its own people and brutally cracking down on any sort of dissent then it would have no room to cry when the US showed it such actions against its own people had consequences. Maduro is an incompetent buffon as well as being a wannabe strongman—but his failures, and the failures of Hugo “Penisphone” Chavez have prevented him from pulling it off.

Lol yes, there’s totally an army occupying Indonesia right now to get those precious minerals :roll:
People in Afghanistan are also far better off with the Taliban kicked out of power—-and for all the hysterical articles about how much of the boonies they control, the simple fact is that controlling or contesting the boonies does not allow one to control the country itself—-but I get that people like Glenn Greenwald are desperate to find a way to paint women voting as “imperialism”.

Yes, we all know that the Iranians, who have directly supported or ordered numerous terrorist attacks, are unjustly being denied their place in the sun :roll:

Oh look, and then we’ve got another hysterical rant about “dissidents”. Yawn.

 

[Evilroddy]

Tigerace117:

Sanctioning a government which has brutally abused its own people and whose ministers include drug traffickers is not “empire” in any way, shape or form. If Canada’s government had started starving its own people and brutally cracking down on any sort of dissent then it would have no room to cry when the US showed it such actions against its own people had consequences. ...

Then why not sanction the States of Mexico, Guatemala, Columbia and Brazil which are equally brutal to parts of their own populations and are deeply involved in the drugs trade from grassroots to ministerial levels? The answer is that those four regimes serve the interests of the USA at the expense of their own people while Venezuela serves its own corrupt interests at the expense of its own people. So yes, this is a good example of how the commercial empire of America works, despite your weak denials.

We agree on Maduro being an utter failure and a corrupt would-be-strongman, but that is for Venezuelans to change and the US should not be involved. We disagree on Hugo Chavez but your name-calling is just childish.

With regard to the hypothetical Canadian denial of oil/gas scenario, you dodged the question by adding an absurd twist that the Canadian government was oppressing its people. My question to you was if the Canadian government ended oil exports to the USA for environmental reasons, do you not think that the USA would be very aggressive in getting that cessation of exporting to stop. I know that the US would be involved in trying to change the government of Canada and trying to destabilise the state of Canada if it could not budge the existing government to change such a policy.

Lol yes, there’s totally an army occupying Indonesia right now to get those precious minerals :roll:
People in Afghanistan are also far better off with the Taliban kicked out of power ... but I get that people like Glenn Greenwald are desperate to find a way to paint women voting as “imperialism”.

US mineral firms and their Indonesian proxies have been hiring armed mobs to destabilise the cities of the country in order to destabilise the country and to sway recent elections in order to shut down a movement towards economic nationalism. It got so bad two years ago that US interests were actually cooperating with an Indonesian off-shoot of ISIS in the mob hiring campaign. Ou should read the regular reports of veteran American reporter Allan Nairn about what is really going on there. The real army militarily occupying Indonesia is the one controlled by local generals who are supplied with lavish amounts of American kit and who are divided into camps which either resist and threaten coup or meekly support the elected government which is alarming the mining interests.

Regarding Afghanistan, have you ever been there? I have and the US-backed puppet governments which serve Western interests are despised by most Afghans and not just the Taliban. The Taliban are fanatics but Afghanistan has a long tradition of militant fanatics from the Ghuzz/Ghazzi to the present day Taliban. Democracy is despised too, and not just because of women voting or running for office. Western democracy threatens the established Loya Jirga system which has driven Afghan politics for centuries. Trying to remake Afghanistan into an impotent facade of a Western liberal democracy is the height of imperial intervention as it weakens the Afghans and divides them while introducing a foreign social ethos about women in public life.

I have no idea what you're on about concerning Glenn Greenwald. Has he ever reported or visited Afghanistan?

Yes, we all know that the Iranians, who have directly supported or ordered numerous terrorist attacks, are unjustly being denied their place in the sun :roll:

No. They are being uniquely targetted. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a much bigger sponser of terrorism than Iran, is invading and destroying Yemen using mercenary proxies with US assistance and is brutally mistreating its own population and those of some surrounding states like Bahrain and Qatar. Yet the KSA is protected while Iran is pilloried. Egypt treats its own population worse than Iran does by far, but the US is happily arming the el-Sisi regime and turning a blind eye to the mass killings going on there. Why? Because the KSA and Egypt serve US imperial interests while Iran tries to thwart them.

Oh look, and then we’ve got another hysterical rant about “dissidents”. Yawn.

I wonder how you would feel and behave if you were confined in a private, for-profit prison in a CMU for dissenting with other posters here. This is not a rant, it is really happening. You may dismiss dissidents but your own republic was founded by them 243 years ago. That you cannot or choose not to see that speaks volumes about the kind of America you think exists.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Tigerace117]

Tigerace117:



Then why not sanction the States of Mexico, Guatemala, Columbia and Brazil which are equally brutal to parts of their own populations and are deeply involved in the drugs trade from grassroots to ministerial levels? The answer is that those four regimes serve the interests of the USA at the expense of their own people while Venezuela serves its own corrupt interests at the expense of its own people. So yes, this is a good example of how the commercial empire of America works, despite your weak denials.

We agree on Maduro being an utter failure and a corrupt would-be-strongman, but that is for Venezuelans to change and the US should not be involved. We disagree on Hugo Chavez but your name-calling is just childish.

With such a policy.



US mineral firms and their Indonesian proxies have been hiring armed mobs to destabilise the cities of the country in order to destabilise the country and to sway recent elections in order to shut down a movement towards economic nationalism. It got so bad two years ago that US interests were actually cooperating with an Indonesian off-shoot of ISIS in the mob hiring campaign. Ou should read the regular reports of veteran American reporter Allan Nairn about what is really going on there. The real army militarily occupying Indonesia is the one controlled by localand divides them while introducing a foreign social ethos about women in public life.

I have no idea what you're on about concerning Glenn Greenwald. Has he ever reported or visited Afghanistan?



No. They are being uniquely targetted. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a much bigger sponser of terrorism than Iran, is invading and destroying Yemen using mercenary proxies with US assistance and is brutally mistreating its own population and those of some surrounding states like Bahrain and Qatar. Yet the KSA is protected while Iran is pilloried. Egypt treats its own population worse than Iran does by far, but the US is happily arming the el-Sisi regime and turning a blind eye to the mass killings going on there. Why? Because the KSA and Egypt serve US imperial interests while Iran tries to thwart them.



I wonder how you would feel and behave if you were confined in a private, for-profit prison in a CMU for dissenting with other posters here. This is not a rant, it is really happening. You may dismiss dissidents but your own republic was founded by them 243 years ago. That you cannot or choose not to see that speaks volumes about the kind of America you think exists.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Oh look, another incoherent, rambling essay from you.

Remembering Hugo Chavez and the Vergatario "Penis" phone - Tech Digest

It was Chavez’s failure to diversify the economy in the first place which set them on the road to collapse.....which started well before the “imperial sanctions”.

Gee, because if we sanction those countries, then we’d just have to hear more hysterical ranting and raving about American “empire”.

Mexico, Brazil, Guatemala and Colombia also aren’t sponsoring fanatical splinter terrorist groups intent on destabilizing neighboring countries.

Except that Venezuelans are starving and therefore have not been able to change the fact that the thug in charge and his gangs of heavily armed fanatics—who show no reluctance to use force on anyone, whether or not they are a combatant, who opposes them in any way—is still running the show. The US can’t pretend everything will just turn out okay in the end if we go “lalala I can’t hear you I can’t see you”. Sanctions are a way of showing brutal thugs that they can’t just kick around their own people and scream “imperialism” as an excuse.

The reason why the US is sanctioning Venezuela is because the Venezuelan government is oppressing it’s own people. That is the entire point. As for your claim, it is nothing more than a hypothetical, with no real evidence to back up your theory.

So in other words not an “empire”. Indonesia has had problems with military officials doing whatever the hell they want pretty much since independence; trying to blame it on “American empire” is dumb. You also have the fact that if the US did take efforts to crack down, the usual suspects would start up wailing about “American empire”.....again. And a mineral company conducting unsavory business practices is not a sign of “empire”.

“Democracy is despised”.....hate to break it to you bud, facts don’t bear that one out. The recent elections had a low turnout due to Taliban threats....not because “Afghans hate democracy” or whatever version of “oriental despotism-lite” get spewed in Canada to justify opposing a government which is leaps and bounds better than the Taliban. But gee, how exactly does democracy make them “weak”? That’s a laughable subjective term first off. Secondly, are you seriously trying to claim that women voting is “imperialism”? Because that’s a load of crap.

Glenn Greenwald is a hack pure and simple.

 

[Tigerace117]

Tigerace117:



Then why not sanction the States of Mexico, Guatemala, Columbia and Brazil which are equally brutal to parts of their own populations and are deeply involved in the drugs trade from grassroots to ministerial levels? The answer is that those four regimes serve the interests of the USA at the expense of their own people while Venezuela serves its own corrupt interests at the expense of its own people. So yes, this is a good example of how the commercial empire of America works, despite your weak denials.

We agree on Maduro being an utter failure and a corrupt would-be-strongman, but that is for Venezuelans to change and the US should not be involved. We disagree on Hugo Chavez but your name-calling is just childish.

With regard to the hypothetical Canadian denial of oil/gas scenario, you dodged the question by adding an absurd twist that the Canadian government was oppressing its people. My question to you was if the Canadian government ended oil exports to the USA for environmental reasons, do you not think that the USA would be very aggressive in getting that cessation of exporting to stop. I know that the US would be involved in trying to change the government of Canada and trying to destabilise the state of Canada if it could not budge the existing government to change such a policy.



US mineral firms and their Indonesian proxies have been hiring armed mobs to destabilise the cities of the country in order to destabilise the country and to sway recent elections in order to shut down a movement towards economic nationalism. It got so bad two years ago that US interests were actually cooperating


No. They are being uniquely targetted. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a much bigger sponser of terrorism than Iran, is invading and destroying Yemen using mercenary proxies with US assistance and is brutally mistreating its own population and those of some surrounding states like Bahrain and Qatar. Yet the KSA is protected while Iran is pilloried. Egypt treats its own population worse than Iran does by far, but the US is happily arming the el-Sisi regime and turning a blind eye to the mass killings going on there. Why? Because the KSA and Egypt serve US imperial interests while Iran tries to thwart them.



I wonder how you would feel and behave if you were confined in a private, for-profit prison in a CMU for dissenting with other posters here. This is not a rant, it is really happening. You may dismiss dissidents but your own republic was founded by them 243 years ago. That you cannot or choose not to see that speaks volumes about the kind of America you think exists.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

The rest of your post is nothing more than pompous postering, whining about how awful it is that a country which has repeatedly ordered terrorist attacks is opposed, and general stupidity.

But then again, you are a Glenn Greenwald fan, and that explains a lot

 

[Fishking]

Liberation is not imperialism.

Does overthrowing a democratically elected government in Iran and installing a dictator count as liberation to you?

Does supporting genocide in Guatemala for corporate profits count as liberation to you?

Does supporting one of the most tyrannical regimes in the world (Saudi Arabia) and help them commit war crimes in Yemen count as liberation to you?

Does helping overthrow a democratically elected President in Ukraine, instead of waiting for the next election, count as liberation to you?

I mean...what is your definition of liberation here?