The US empire

[Harshaw]

I was aware of 'the great game' between Russia and Britain at the time. Very educational.

:mrgreen:

Yeah. Apparently not.

 

[Goobieman]

Why would I be embarassed that your sharing knowledge. I know more about the Soviet Union than I do the british empire.

And so, you disputed the claim that the UK was the first Global Empire, because....?

 

[German guy]

For what it's worth, you might like to check out the book of German political scientist Herfried Münkler about "Empires". It would take me wonder if there was no English translation.

In the end, we might be twisting words here. Call it "empire" or "hegemony", and discuss its scope -- in the end, I assume we all know what we mean when America is called an "empire".

 

[MKULTRABOY]

No, as in that's all i was aware of. O.0 I knew it happened I ddint knwo the deatils. Srry. I gotta be more clear.

 

[Harshaw]

And so, you disputed the claim that the UK was the first Global Empire, because....?

And that the British Empire had no global military reach, and that they never invaded central Asia.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

And so, you disputed the claim that the UK was the first Global Empire, because....?

The US's power to revise governments regardless of geographic location is stronger than britain's was from what I understand. Also, the UK had competing empires to deal with as well to some extent.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

And so, you disputed the claim that the UK was the first Global Empire, because....?

And dont ride off of harshaws sweeping blow to my exposed stance in getting into something i didnt know about. Begone, buzzard.

 

[Goobieman]

And dont ride off of harshaws sweeping blow to my exposed stance in getting into something i didnt know about. Begone, buzzard.

You did, at least, admit you had no clue - but that still doesnt explain why you said what you said.

The UK had 'global reach' back in the mid 1700s.

 

[Goobieman]

The US's power to revise governments regardless of geographic location is stronger than britain's was from what I understand. Also, the UK had competing empires to deal with as well to some extent.

That doesn't mean the UK wasn't a global empire.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Could it invade any country on the planet regardless of geographical location?

 

[Goobieman]

Could it invade any country on the planet regardless of geographical location?

The UK? In the Victorian era? Yes.
And, even if she could not -- that's not a valid standard in defining 'global empire'.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Mmk. :humbled:

U win for now...
But I will be watching in the shadows.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

The US is the first country with global military reach.

No we're not.
Spain, France, Britain, and others - all waged significant wars and fought battles in other areas of the world before we even declared our Independence. . .and colonization surely wasn't fostered by the US of places like Southern Africa.

Currently a vast number of other countries have their hands in many militant pies - we're not hte only ones with bases and footholds internationally.

Sorry - but it's just a fact that we're just 'one of the many' when it comes to vast empires - economic, militant or otherwise.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Im just under the impression that in having no competing empires and the strongest army by about 20 times over that our status is a little higher and revisionist capabilities more significant than Britain's ever was really. This is partially opinion I dont have time to write a 10 page paper comparing relative power between hegemons and other nations.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Im just under the impression that in having no competing empires and the strongest army by about 20 times over that our status is a little higher and revisionist capabilities more significant than Britain's ever was really. This is partially opinion I dont have time to write a 10 page paper comparing relative power between hegemons and other nations.

So you're arguing that we're a bigger or stronger 'empire'
Indeed we are.

But not *the first* which is what I was rebuting.

 

[Le Marteau]

The entire premise of this argument isn't just flawed, it's flat out wrong. Firstly, I ought to start by saying that America is not the first 'global empire', not by a long shot -- it's not even the most powerful (relatively speaking) great power in history, also by a long shot. By that, I mean to say, America has peers, rivals, equals and threats -- even from 1990-2001, the height of American dominance, America could not claim to be powerful enough to take on all the other great powers (and by great powers, I'm referring to the universally accepted Bismarckian Great Power theory -- that there are, at any time, about five nations within the 'ballpark' of eachother. Today's great powers are Britain, France, China, Russia and America -- the Security Council, no coincidence). Britain's dominance in the 19th century is the closest the world's come to a hyperpower (what would come beyond a superpower -- when superpowers arise, they are usually polarising, meaning there are two to three that pull most of the rest of the lesser powers into their spheres. Britain's dominance of the 19th century was almost peerless, thus being the closest we've yet gotten to a hyperpower on the world stage).

So, your first premise is incorrect. Next, America's dominance is waning, and has been since 2001. For better or worse, the Americans reacted in perhaps the most self-destructive way to the 9/11 attacks. I'm no supporter of radical Islam, believe you me, but it has become quite clear that the attacks have, through reactionary events, achieved what the attacker's wanted most -- the weakening of America. It's been almost a decade since then, and the changes in the world atmosphere are quite stunning. America is no longer the economic power it was -- it's been overtaken by the EU, China and India. America has seen a massive loss of soft-power respect -- through filibustering UN actions in places like Rwanda (admittedly 1994), Darfur, Tibet, etc., while continually supporting Israel and its at-times war-mongering behaviour, the world has come to see that American diplomacy means next to nothing. So that means that military action is the only venue through which the States can enfore their will -- and with their military stretched between two unwinnable occupations, people have to come to disrespect the American military. Furthermore, France and Germany's refusal of the call to war in Iraq has essentially broken the Cold-War era NATO understanding -- NATO, while still an organisation and a paper-plan, has proven to be a totally useless alliance in practice.

Now, that was all just debasing your argument that America is an evil hegemony -- I can disprove this by disproving hegemony. America is not supreme, America is simply one of several equals on the world stage. Which means, you can't point to America for all of the world's blessings OR problems.

Now, with that in mind, I will go on to say that America's influence on the world is not just harmful -- there are plenty of good ways America influences the world, along with the bad. Is America supporting some arguably rogue states in the world, like Israel? Yes, of course. But is it also firmly opposed to other rogue states, like North Korea? Also, yes, of course. America is not the biggest donator to organisations like Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders), but it is a firm sponsor of the Red Cross, or their very own Peace Corps. America is involved in a nasty ongoing occupation in Afghanistan, where atrocities have undoubtedly been committed, by both sides -- such is war. But America is also taking a more intelligent and peaceful approach to nations like Cuba, who they've previously emargoed, etc.

So, essentially, I think that you're wrong on two accounts -- America is not as powerful as you say, and it's also not evil -- it's a mixed bag. Some good things come out of the States, and some harmful things do, as well. Like pretty much every other powerful nation in the history of the world, it's got its ups and downs.

 

[Harshaw]

Oh, Christ -- by what measure have China and India "overtaken" the US economically? Only the EU has the possible claim of combined GDP, but I'm not even sure that's still accurate. And it's a fiction anyway, because the EU isn't a nation.

 

[Le Marteau]

Oh, Christ -- by what measure have China and India "overtaken" the US economically? Only the EU has the possible claim of combined GDP, but I'm not even sure that's still accurate. And it's a fiction anyway, because the EU isn't a nation.

The EU is the most powerful economic entity on Earth -- the GDP is more than that of the US, and it's got the most economic "throw", or soft-power, of any entity on Earth. Regardless of the fact that it's made up of several nations, it is a unified economic bloc, just as the fifty states of the US are a unified economic bloc under the nomer of 'America'.

Secondly, India and China do not have the GDP America does -- but assuming that GDP is the determiner of 'economic power' is also flawed. If GDP were the sole, or even primary determinant in 'economic power', America and China wouldn't have this strange chimeric and symbiotic relationship to eachother, each tied down by the other's economy.

 

[Harshaw]

No, the United States is a cohesive nation of a single language, culture, history, and identity -- and government -- not just some league of countries who happened to lump their currencies together. (And we'll see how much longer that goes on, too.)

And I guess India and China have overtaken the US economically because you say they have? That's all I'm getting from you.

 

[Le Marteau]

No, the United States is a cohesive nation of a single language, culture, history, and identity -- and government -- not just some league of countries who happened to lump their currencies together. (And we'll see how much longer that goes on, too.)

And I guess India and China have overtaken the US economically because you say they have? That's all I'm getting from you.

What does culture, identity or government have to do with it? It's absolutely superfluous -- the EU is an economic bloc, and it acts as an economic bloc. The Eurozone is every bit as unified economically as the US is, or China is. It is not some NAFTA-esque trade organisation, it is a single economy, and the most powerful and largest in the world.

Secondly, why have you chosen to throw out what I just said about China and India? You appear to have taken my argument, and said "Yeah, well, that's what YOU SAY!" Which, I might add, is not an accepted form of argument. It's even lower than ad-hominem attacks.

Really, I don't know why you're having trouble coming to terms with this. I won't say it's because you're American, or Conservative, or whatever you are -- I don't know. But for some reason, you refuse to believe that the US isn't the foremost economic power on earth anymore, which puzzles me, as there's no way to refute the basic fact of it, short of denial.

 

[Harshaw]

Hardly. You merely declared it and offered no support for it whatsoever. I, at least gave A measure, which you dismissed out of hand. But you offered none of your own.

I don't know if that's because you're a cliche' of a Euroliberal sporting a hammer and sickle like a college freshman, but nonetheless, it's what you did. (See? I can play these childish games, too!)

 

[Demon of Light]

The US is the last, best hope for freedom and liberty

I sure hope you are wrong about that, because that must mean we are already screwed.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The EU is the most powerful economic entity on Earth -- the GDP is more than that of the US, and it's got the most economic "throw", or soft-power, of any entity on Earth. Regardless of the fact that it's made up of several nations, it is a unified economic bloc, just as the fifty states of the US are a unified economic bloc under the nomer of 'America'.

Secondly, India and China do not have the GDP America does -- but assuming that GDP is the determiner of 'economic power' is also flawed. If GDP were the sole, or even primary determinant in 'economic power', America and China wouldn't have this strange chimeric and symbiotic relationship to eachother, each tied down by the other's economy.

I would argue against saying the EU has the biggest economic soft power. The US does/had due to the willingness to run large trade deficits making it an attractive market to enter, and the ability to do so made countries more friendly with the US. The EU does not have such negative economic policies and would have a lower economic softpower as a result

 

[Goobieman]

I sure hope you are wrong about that, because that must mean we are already screwed.

Who, if not the US, holds this position?

 

[Demon of Light]

Who, if not the US, holds this position?

I am saying if the U.S. really is the "last, best hope for freedom and liberty" and there is no one else then there is no hope.