NationStates Jolt Archive

I think it is. For one thing, most of the US is on land taken from Native Americans or bought from people who stole it from them. While that was a long time ago, I don't think 225-150 year old conquests stop being conquests. Indeed, the US almost committed genocide against them.

Then there are the various military dictatorships that the US supported in various ways, like the 1973 Chilean coup and the 1964 Brazil coup, not to mention how the US supported Saddam Hussein when it was convenient and now that he opposes US interests, he is being removed.

While the US isn't as brutal an empire as the Roman empire or Nazi Germany, it is definately imperialistic. While the government will tell you that they are simply spreading democracy and fighting terrorism, keep in mind that plenty of other empires made justifications like that, too.

The illusion of the US being non-imperialist comes from its unique style of imperialism, which centers around replacing original cultures and economies with ones that benefit US capitalism (such as how McDonalds is seen in so many places and jobs are being outsourced).

A good example of this would be how the US supported Pinochet, whose capitalist dictatorship overthrew a socialist democracy. Pinochet killed 3,000 people and tortured thousands more, but the US placed sanctions on Chile before the coup and encouraged instability that helped overthrow the democratic government.

It's going the same way as the British Empire though, just give it time.

Actually, the Roman Empire wasn't THAT brutal and I dunno if Germany counts due to the fact it didn't hold onto territory for that long.

The US has peaked and its power is declining. It will soon be eclipsed by China and the EU.

I don't think any nation can truly be an empire unless it is ruled by an emperor.

Most definintions of an 'empire' are circular - ruled by an emperor, etc. The only one I know of which isn't (a state which rules over numerous different cultures) applies to any multi-cultural nation.

How are you defining 'empire'? The examples you gave could apply to almost any nation on earth.

your just now figuring this out Letila? (BTW i do live in the US. in georgia to be more spicific)(also im not trying to insult you or eney thing)

your just now figuring this out Letila? (BTW i do live in the US. in georgia to be more spicific)(also im not trying to insult you or eney thing)

I've known it for a while, I was just asking others.

gotcha Letila and (unfortunaly) i have to agre with myrth on this one the us is probibily fu**ed.

Short answer ... no. :)

The US government isn't an empire-ruling government.
However we in the west live in the American Cultural Empire.

But in terms of political clout the EU and China are indeed in the ascendency, and I'd be surprised if the smartest corporations don't relocate headquarters to either of those areas within the next 50 years, at least until the next empire-esque megastate comes along.

Or corporations cease to exist......

say wha???

say wha???

'Wha???'


Happy?

The US government isn't an empire-ruling government.

then explain that huge chunk of mexico we occupy. or how we own the black hills.

i was talking to Eutrusca. "wha" means "what" just w/o the T

then explain that huge chunk of mexico we occupy. or how we own the black hills.

Very true.

The US government isn't an empire-ruling government.
However we in the west live in the American Cultural Empire.

But in terms of political clout the EU and China are indeed in the ascendency, and I'd be surprised if the smartest corporations don't relocate headquarters to either of those areas within the next 50 years, at least until the next empire-esque megastate comes along.

Or corporations cease to exist......

EU cannot unite and have proven this repeatedly. Their combined economic power is formidable but unless they all get under one powerful, despotic government, their existence is a joke. There isnt even a proper universal language. English competes with German, which competes with French and Russian. And US businesses regularily cooperate with your owns, there wont be much reason to attempt to create a situation of "Supremacy."

China is too corrupt to allow for much real growth, and their dishonesty is scaring off foreign investments. It also needs to have good relations with the US or it might see the entire far east decline into a long world war. China wont present a challenge to the US, in fact, it may become one of the greatest allies and trading partners we will ever know.

The USA is under no threat, largely because it isnt a conventional empire and is too powerful to be taken by any new empire that might arise. Its also currently central to the global economy, which is perhaps the only respect in which the EU and China can pose a real threat to it.

The USA's legistature cannot support an empire and this is well known. Although originally they did attempt to take colonies right after the fall of the spanish empire, they found everyone complaining because, unlike other empires, the US wasnt under a restrictive monarchy. The colonial acquissitions would need to be represented. Its odd that they didnt learn this early on after Hawaiin revolutions caused them to request to become a US state (the US initially resisted and sent in inspectors to try and prove the Hawaii'ans still wanted their queen in power.)

However, in a very diffrent sense the US serves as a mecca where diffrent cultures mix their best traits and basically import the best of what they can get. Which means they exploit crappy but widely adaptable concepts outside which take a foothold and start to mix isolated cultures indirectly.

I really don't live in an empire per' see. True we do invade nations ruled by dictators, but like in Iraq, we're not going to make it a territory of ours. Once the job is done Iraq, it will be sovereign just like any other country.

then explain that huge chunk of mexico we occupy. or how we own the black hills.
OK, in fairness, I was speaking in relative terms. By your logic, the Irish government owning some territory on continental Europe for ambassadorial and retreat purposes makes Ireland an empire, or Denmark's ownership of Greenland makes Denmark an empire.

The US, despite the amount of land it exerts a huge influence over, doesn't own all this land, as a traditional empire does. Hence my assertion that the government itself isn't an actual empire, but it does support the cultural empire I referred to.

The US government will last forever, as long as the human race lives on, whether just by name or in some other form. We now occupy such a large land mass, that even when the whole planet unites because the ailens arrived, or whatever. Our continent will still have America as part of the name with stupid rich white idiots trying to out spin their opponents to rule over us while still claiming to be "of the people".

The US has peaked and its power is declining. It will soon be eclipsed by China and the EU.

Europe and China, wow, thats your plan to overthrow us, may I just say that a nation declining isnt one moce. Its like a coke machine, you have to rock it back and forth a few times before it can be knocked down.

then explain that huge chunk of mexico we occupy. or how we own the black hills.

Simple, that wasnt imperialism.

Many of the mexicans defected to us willingly and the movements were made under no guise of installing a new government to control mexico, we simply took their land. Imperialism requires us to take over government functions in the target country, police and control them, force them to work and bring us supplies, in "exchange" for "teaching" culture, religion, and science. We tried this in the Phillipenes.

1) I pray to God that the EU never ever ever becomes an Empire or some Federal State. It will be the worst thing ever to happen to England if it were to become rules by a government in Brussels, or, heaven forbid, Paris!
2) Even if the US WAS an empire, which it's not as it appears to be setting about democracy in certain countries instead of flying the US Flag over those countries with an extra star or so, it would NEVER match up to the British Empire.

Interesting Question...


Now free elections have been held for the first time in 5000 years in afghanistan, I wonder how they feel about being 'conquered' by that empire. The women that got to vote there must not have known what to do.

China may end up being a problem, but I have a feeling that the EU will not be able to put aside their long standing ancient rivalries long enough to overtake the USA. The only thing that will keep the EU together IMO is their mutual dislike of the USA which probably exceeds their mutual dislike of each other. Should the USA show signs of weakness, they may make fragmentary power moves on each other too soon to finish the job of defeating the west in their haste to fill the vacuum, thus allowing the west to recover. Capitalism is nothing if not resiliant, if you do not completely stomp it out, it will recover due to the basic human tenets of greed and self interest through competition.

Should defeating the 'evil empire' be your goal (and it might be folly to consider china any less of one), you should not look away until you have absolutely made sure that the job is finished. Leave nothing to chance with resiliant spirits, see the light fade and then buy insurance and scatter the offspring to the wind.

But what else would a spider say?

Anansi

none of the things you cite make a country an empire.

what makes us an empire is ruling places that are not integrated part of the country.

so we have hawaii, but that is a state, fully integrated part of the US with people living there having all the rights of citizenship.

but we have puerto rico, the US virgin islands, guam, american samoa, some other places. these are NOT fully integrated into the US. they are "possessions"

plus there are those military bases in various places in the world which are not US possessions.

in MY opinion that is what makes us an empire. not so different from the roman empire or the british empire.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/us_rome.htm Nice read.

Now free elections have been held for the first time in 5000 years in afghanistan, I wonder how they feel about being 'conquered' by that empire. The women that got to vote there must not have known what to do.

Odd how the US didn't care about women's rights until they were attacked. Did the Taliban suddenly become sexist then?

China may end up being a problem


Does anyone read what i say?

The combination of the USA as a diplomatic peacekeeper in the east Asian cold war and its large trade and migration relations with the US (yes, its bidirectional now, many US engineering students of asian heritage also study in China now, which means money for China,) means the Chinese would want to keep pandering to the US so that there is no chance of the USA ever taking sides in a battle or considering taking note of the widespread government opression in China and placing economic penalties on China. China wont become an enemy of the US, and may turn out to be a powerful ally.

Hmmm.....and everyone says that we have no class....I don't see any of these kind of things cming from Americans....funny

EU cannot unite and have proven this repeatedly. Their combined economic power is formidable but unless they all get under one powerful, despotic government, their existence is a joke. There isnt even a proper universal language. English competes with German, which competes with French and Russian. And US businesses regularily cooperate with your owns, there wont be much reason to attempt to create a situation of "Supremacy."
The recent EU constitution is a step in the direction of direct rule, without eliminating too much of each nation's sovereignty. A universal language isn't a real issue, as the population is largely well-educated and most Europeans can speak at least basic English or French anyway, while the politicians are given copies of every piece of EU legislation in whatever language(s) they request. Russia isn't in the EU.........
And I don't fully understand your point about US busienesses co-operating with EU ones? Did I imply that they couldn't???

China is too corrupt to allow for much real growth, and their dishonesty is scaring off foreign investments. It also needs to have good relations with the US or it might see the entire far east decline into a long world war. China wont present a challenge to the US, in fact, it may become one of the greatest allies and trading partners we will ever know.
China is certainly coming in from the cold in economic terms and is not scaring off foreign investment. In fact small-sclae and large-scale European investment is on the increase in China. The PRC's current government are also enthusiastic about improving relations with the US economically, but the US in its current state is not interested in improving international trade relations with a communist nation which has no interest in the war on terror. I don't think it's a case of either the EU or China presenting a challenge to US dominance, but rather of them both beginning to attain a level of parity with the US.

The USA is under no threat, largely because it isnt a conventional empire and is too powerful to be taken by any new empire that might arise. Its also currently central to the global economy, which is perhaps the only respect in which the EU and China can pose a real threat to it.Economic terms are the only ones which are relevant to the US 'empire' as I see it, adn the only real ways in which China and the EU can compete, or even need to compete, with the US.

Odd how the US didn't care about women's rights until they were attacked. Did the Taliban suddenly become sexist then?

Keeping them fighting against the soviets were more important than yelling at them for rights infractions. Since the formation of the taliban government, the passing of the soviet threat, and the rapid increase in religiously oriented government (with significant funding for terror groups being provided, lergely raised by opium,) it became important to depose them. The increase of women's rights was a pleasant side effect.

There is a wonderful 2 volume book entitled the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. America's most important documents (Bill of Rights, your Constitution, etc) were written by British and American politicans, who were trying to emulate the former greatness and glory that was Rome. They believed that they could take all the amazing things that the Roman's had done and created, with out following in their footsteps down the path to ruin. However, all of their hard work was for nothing. The cracks of this modern empire are showing, and are getting bigger and harder to patch. America is basically rotting from the inside out, just like Rome did. It is now only a matter of time before we see a new empire emerge. It will either be China or the EU. It will be interesting to watch the birth of a new order, and America fade into history. I wonder how many volumes it will take to describe her?

Keeping them fighting against the soviets were more important than yelling at them for rights infractions. Since the formation of the taliban government, the passing of the soviet threat, and the rapid increase in religiously oriented government (with significant funding for terror groups being provided, lergely raised by opium,) it became important to depose them. The increase of women's rights was a pleasant side effect.

In other words, the Taliban was left along when it served a purpose, but when it got in the US's way, it had to go.

then explain that huge chunk of mexico we occupy. or how we own the black hills.

We occupy a huge chunk of Mexico?

China is certainly coming in from the cold in economic terms and is not scaring off foreign investment. In fact small-sclae and large-scale European investment is on the increase in China.

Either the European industries are slow to learn or your sources are out of date. Chinese investment was a big craze for a while due to its rapid growth and among some circles a lot of investment is still being made, but they rarely return on these investments with more than a thank you, and many people are becoming wary of this.

The PRC's current government are also enthusiastic about improving relations with the US economically, but the US in its current state is not interested in improving international trade relations with a communist nation which has no interest in the war on terror. I don't think it's a case of either the EU or China presenting a challenge to US dominance, but rather of them both beginning to attain a level of parity with the US.

Such ignorance is downright scary.

For one, you called China a communist nation. The only thing communist about China is heavy propaganda and disrespect for the lives of working classes, in many ways its market has less regulation than the US does (have you heard of their concern for safety in the workplace? Downright scary.) and it rarely abides to international regulatory agreements it promises to, unlike the US, which openly states they will or will not follow the guidlines.

For two, you told me the US has been stifling trade with China. Nixon ended this with long negotiations aimed at trying to win China over during the cold war and chinese traffic has been overwhelming since (although Nixon's efforts to please china were overpowered by the soviets in several respects.) The only real thorn is the chinese allowing there people to bootleg american property, which obscures the vast amounts of manufactured goods and heavy machinery moving back and forth between the two nations.

Economic terms are the only ones which are relevant to the US 'empire' as I see it, adn the only real ways in which China and the EU can compete, or even need to compete, with the US.

Yes, and the US has traditionally always excelled to awesome degrees at commerce and industry. Whether this will catch up to changing times or adapt into another specialty remains to be seen, but theres no way the US will fall from its perch as a major power.

The US government will last forever, as long as the human race lives on, whether just by name or in some other form. We now occupy such a large land mass, that even when the whole planet unites because the ailens arrived, or whatever. Our continent will still have America as part of the name with stupid rich white idiots trying to out spin their opponents to rule over us while still claiming to be "of the people".


The US actually shares a continent. Just to be a fact Nazi :rolleyes:

In other words, the Taliban was left along when it served a purpose, but when it got in the US's way, it had to go.

The taliban does not resist the entire movement against the Soviets. They in fact became significant quite late on and really never had much of a purpose which was overly useful to the US. But yes, thats correct in the sense you may have intented that, and its perfectly acceptable

While the USA DOES have imperial tendencies, I would hardly call it an empire. An empire gains land by conquest, and usually people of that land have to convert to whatever national religion or language.

Conquest: Yeah, definitely stole land from Native Americans, but at that time it started out as a BRITISH conquest if I remember correctly before America gained independence. I wouldn't exactly count Hawaii and Alaska as "conquered lands". With Iraq, that is a complex situation. I mean...who knows what the real reasons for going in were/are? If it was genuinely to fight Saddam Hussein it wasn't a conquest, if it was for oil, well then it might have been. But the fact is, those aren't the only two reasons and nothing is black and white. (Not that I support Iraq or don't...just giving a POV)

The most imperial thing about America right now is Bush. Yes, Bush. Father/son/same war thing a leeeeeetle too close for comfort. Bush has been stretching the constitution to grant himself and the upper class liberties and that I find imperial. By the way, for all you Bush-lovers out there, I'd love to hear why Bush is a better candidate than Kerry...all the Bush people I've asked haven't given me one good reason.

I don't think any nation can truly be an empire unless it is ruled by an emperor.
Nonsense. The Roman Empire was a republic for centuries before Augustus. And still it was an empire. The French Empire also was an empire who was a republic for a long time.

There is a wonderful 2 volume book entitled the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. America's most important documents (Bill of Rights, your Constitution, etc) were written by British and American politicans, who were trying to emulate the former greatness and glory that was Rome. They believed that they could take all the amazing things that the Roman's had done and created, with out following in their footsteps down the path to ruin. However, all of their hard work was for nothing.

Wrong.

The document was written mostly by europeans, few americans were involved. Not all that many of them were brits, a lot of scandanavians, germans, and dutch were involved. The laws themselves, although definitely modeled after roman codes of law (as with all european law) was based on the Dutch Empire's laws (hence provisions for strange concepts like "Freedom of Religion" and "Seperation of Church and State,") not the Roman Empire's.

The styling of many of the old cities and the pride of our democracy lay largely in admiration of the greeks, not so much the romans. We emulated much of their architecture and glorified their legends. But the laws and protocols themselves are of a more recent sort.

The cracks of this modern empire are showing, and are getting bigger and harder to patch. America is basically rotting from the inside out, just like Rome did. It is now only a matter of time before we see a new empire emerge. It will either be China or the EU. It will be interesting to watch the birth of a new order, and America fade into history. I wonder how many volumes it will take to describe her?

Do i really need to repeat myself again?

Keeping them fighting against the soviets were more important than yelling at them for rights infractions. Since the formation of the taliban government, the passing of the soviet threat, and the rapid increase in religiously oriented government (with significant funding for terror groups being provided, lergely raised by opium,) it became important to depose them. The increase of women's rights was a pleasant side effect.
I don't recall the Taliban fighting the Soviets.

I don't recall the Taliban fighting the Soviets.

I pointed out that the taliban didnt do much to help the US at all.

While the USA DOES have imperial tendencies, I would hardly call it an empire. An empire gains land by conquest, and usually people of that land have to convert to whatever national religion or language.
Why do you think the US is drowning the world with their fast food and Mickey Mouse culture?

Conquest: Yeah, definitely stole land from Native Americans, but at that time it started out as a BRITISH conquest if I remember correctly before America gained independence.

So Custer, Buffalo Bill and the likes of them are now British? And it was the British that displaced the Cherokee?

Nonsense. The Roman Empire was a republic for centuries before Augustus. And still it was an empire. The French Empire also was an empire who was a republic for a long time.


Yep. The US is a nation that instills its will/rule upon other nations. In that sense, it is an empire.

*Commits sepukku for agreeing with VW*

*Commits sepukku for agreeing with VW*
*pillages corpse*

Either the European industries are slow to learn or your sources are out of date. Chinese investment was a big craze for a while due to its rapid growth and among some circles a lot of investment is still being made, but they rarely return on these investments with more than a thank you, and many people are becoming wary of this.
European industries are slow to learn, clearly. The biggest investments are coming in the form of city property and retail outlets. There is, granted, little investment in industrial production or manufacturing.



Such ignorance is downright scary.

For one, you called China a communist nation. The only thing communist about China is heavy propaganda and disrespect for the lives of working classes, in many ways its market has less regulation than the US does (have you heard of their concern for safety in the workplace? Downright scary.) and it rarely abides to international regulatory agreements it promises to, unlike the US, which openly states they will or will not follow the guidlines.
They....have no concern for safety in the workplace. And yes I was referring to its communism in passing and as a namesake more than anything else, I was not implying that they are truly Marxist in outlook or applying communism in terms of their trade and economic policies, which would be clear enough from the fact that they are encouraging foreign investment?

For two, you told me the US has been stifling trade with China. Nixon ended this with long negotiations aimed at trying to win China over during the cold war and chinese traffic has been overwhelming since (although Nixon's efforts to please china were overpowered by the soviets in several respects.) The only real thorn is the chinese allowing there people to bootleg american property, which obscures the vast amounts of manufactured goods and heavy machinery moving back and forth between the two nations.
I didn't say the US was stifling trade with China, and I'm fully aware of the Nixon-Kissinger talks which brought China 'out of the cold' as it were and allowed for the masive increase in Chino-American trade. The point I was making was just that the US administration is not giving priority to trade with China on the basis that China is not as urgent an issue as the upcoming election, the war on terror or keeping America's allies on her side. My point was merely that the PRC's government are keen to pursue a further improvement of trade relations and inward investment from US firms, but the US, while they would presumably weelcome such proposals, has bigger fish to fry at the moment.

Yes, and the US has traditionally always excelled to awesome degrees at commerce and industry. Whether this will catch up to changing times or adapt into another specialty remains to be seen, but theres no way the US will fall from its perch as a major power.
I agree. But I think that particularly the EU will reach parity in economic terms with the US.

So Custer, Buffalo Bill and the likes of them are now British? And it was the British that displaced the Cherokee?

They did their fair share. Remember the Cherokee are an eastern tribe.

Smallpox did most of the work.

They did their fair share. Remember the Cherokee are an eastern tribe.

Smallpox did most of the work.
Still it wasn't the British that nearly annihilated them in the end, was it?

Why do you think the US is drowning the world with their fast food and Mickey Mouse culture?


So Custer, Buffalo Bill and the likes of them are now British? And it was the British that displaced the Cherokee?

No, big corporations aren't something completely American. However, I do agree that American globalization sucks...but I don't think you can generalize every person in America by saying "their culture". People have to understand that it's a stereotypical culture...not the actual culture.



I'm not denying that "cowboys" wiped Native Americans out...what I am saying is that they weren't the first...and Americans didn't pop out of nowhere. America was a British conquest, and the beginnings of that British conquest involved murdering Indians.

Yes, but, it's not a conventional empire. Those sorts of things inspire resentment. That's unhealthy in the long-term. Instead, it's an economic empire. We set up puppet governments supported by enough of the population to be palpatable, then suck out their natural resources, sell our products in their shops, and ruin their local industries so that they'll be dependent on us indefinitely. I've heard horror stories how, in the 70's in Egypt, cheap American grain would be dumped on the markets around harvest time, ruining the local farmers and forcing the country into poverty.


Before the West encountered any other part of the world, they were all self-sufficient.

I'm not denying that "cowboys" wiped Native Americans out...what I am saying is that they weren't the first...and Americans didn't pop out of nowhere. America was a British conquest, and the beginnings of that British conquest involved murdering Indians.
That in no way excuses it. It would be like blaming the Catholics for the holocaust cause the Catholics were the ones who blamed the Jews for Jesus.

I agree. But I think that particularly the EU will reach parity in economic terms with the US.

Britain is heading the right direction to accomplish this. Much of the rest of Europe is unfortunately, not. Europe may achieve significant economic power by attracting talented individuals with their extensive welfare system who do not believe they will prosper under the burden of the US work ethic. But the US simply offers better oppurtunities for most people. Both approaches have their merits but the US one seems to be the current best, its only real weakness being the exorbiantly high wages and cost of living.

Is the US an empire? That's a very hard question to answer. One strike against the being an empire is the constant US claim that it isn't one. The vast majority of empires in history have revelled in their imperialism.

A strike against the not being an empire case though is also made in the vast worldwide deployment of US forces, and the immense power wielded in the form of the US nuclear arsenal, which in a way creates a de facto empire.

Corporate imperialism is not the same as state imperialism. For example, the "Coca-Colonization" of the world was carried out without any prompting from the government.

Many of the dictatorships cited in the first post as being supported by the US were supported not out of an attempt to dominate the world, but from an attempt to keep the USSR, a true empire, from dominating. The cold war is a scary time, and for those of us who were only around for the last few years, there is no way we can even begin to understand the atmosphere of fear and terror that existed all around the world. Possibly the actions were imperialistic, but they were never planned with such an intent.

So, in summary, is the US an empire? In the traditional sense, No. In our own crazy American way, we might just be. So, I shall stop rambling and go take a seat.

I'm going to say the following:

*Ahem*

The US, while imperialistic, is not nessecarily an empire per se. It may have.. "liberated" Iraq, but it doesn't directly control it.

I do agree though, that the US is over the hill. But I must make the arguement that the EU will never really overcome anyone. It's like a tube of toothpaste, but everythings been squeased out of it; Europe has no land to grow and therefore can't expand industries, and this hurts it's economy, just like how a child can't fit on old shoes. China though, has great potential if it becomes a true Democratic country.

The US however, is not declining. The dollar is still fairly strong and the president, (if properly chosen by the people) can become a great leader and impress and even influence overseas diplomats and leaders. The only problem is... People aren't as "patriotic" as before. Most of the country doesn't even vote, and those who do usually aren't very educated about the candidates during an election and their backrounds.

*Sigh*

Oh hell yes. What do you think that whole Iraq business was/is about?

That in no way excuses it. It would be like blaming the Catholics for the holocaust cause the Catholics were the ones who blamed the Jews for Jesus.

I'm blaming BOTH the Americans and the British. I'm just saying that you can't use America as a scape goat all the time...the rest of the world has its problems too.

And as for Catholic priests in the Holocaust "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. "
Martin Luther King Jr.

Still it wasn't the British that nearly annihilated them in the end, was it?

Since you're a history buff:

http://www.tolatsga.org/Cherokee1.html

Britain is heading the right direction to accomplish this. Much of the rest of Europe is unfortunately, not. Europe may achieve significant economic power by attracting talented individuals with their extensive welfare system who do not believe they will prosper under the burden of the US work ethic. But the US simply offers better oppurtunities for most people. Both approaches have their merits but the US one seems to be the current best, its only real weakness being the exorbiantly high wages and cost of living.
True. The real challenge for most continental European nations (particularly France) is to keep talented individuals, particularly scientists, inventors, researchers etc. in the country, rather than losing them to US employer's salaries.

and Buechoria, the EU has just admitted ten under-developed new member states, they are the perfect place for industrial expansion as they already have the infrastructure more or less in place, they just need investment in education and manufacturing facilities, which the EU is willing to provide.

Well, OK then. Seeing as I'm part Indian, I'll tell you what: You find me an Indian who isn't more than happy getting rich off the Casino, and who is still upset over the loss of his culture. Not to mention that they have a great deal of autonomy on their reservations. In other words, to refer to America as an Imperialistic nation NOW because of actions that took place well over a hundred years ago is quite foolish. You see, America is quite obviously not an Imperialistic nation any more, as it proved when it gave the Phillipines their Independence, returned control of the Panama canal to Panama, and even now when it is returning control of the Iraqi goverment to the people. You see, to claim that America has an Imperialistic culture because there are Mickey D's all over the world is to introduce an entirely new form of Imperialism, and one that is not even related to the more normal usage. I would not consider actions taken by a private corporation in the interests of higher profits to be Imperialistic. By that definition, Mexico is Imperialistic because Mexicans are flooding the SouthEastern USA, and replacing US culture with their own.

I'm blaming BOTH the Americans and the British. I'm just saying that you can't use America as a scape goat all the time...the rest of the world has its problems too.
But it's ok for Americans to forget their part and scream dumb shit like: We Saved France. We saved the world. Soon to be added: We saved Iraq. Give us a cookie. Cause I don't recall that many Americans admitting to what they have done but rather focus on what others did.

I'm not denying that "cowboys" wiped Native Americans out...

Cowboys? You mean the US Army?

Since you're a history buff:

http://www.tolatsga.org/Cherokee1.html
And you want to say what exactly?

This thread is a American Hate thread look at the name read the first post yeesh

But it's ok for Americans to forget their part and scream dumb shit like: We Saved France. We saved the world. Soon to be added: We saved Iraq. Give us a cookie. Cause I don't recall that many Americans admitting to what they have done but rather focus on what others did.

It's pretty rediculous alright. It's not like anyone on this forum fought in WWII. Personally, I haven't done jack-shit.

This thread is a American Hate thread look at the name read the first post yeesh
So? Whats bad about that?

And you want to say what exactly?

Just thought it would interest you. Nothing more.

But it's ok for Americans to forget their part and scream dumb shit like: We Saved France. We saved the world. Soon to be added: We saved Iraq. Give us a cookie. Cause I don't recall that many Americans admitting to what they have done but rather focus on what others did.

I don't recall myself, being an American, saying that "We Saved France", or Iraq or screaming other "dumb shit". Since when does a nation hold only one opinion?

You're right about America being hypocritical though...you're just putting it out of context, and compared to many other countries, America is relatively moderate on the hypocrite scale.

And I don't want a cookie.

So? Whats bad about that?
Well, in that case I'll start a German hate thread, or perhaps a general European hate thread, and see how people like that. I am assuming you are from Germany of course.

Well, in that case I'll start a German hate thread, or perhaps a general European hate thread, and see how people like that. I am assuming you are from Germany of course.

Can we just try to avoid going down that path yet again. Quite frankly, it bores me.

Cowboys? You mean the US Army?

Fault accepted. My bad.

What about the crusades? the conquistadors? Nazi Germany? Japan? Yugoslavia? All I'm saying is that America isn't unique in wiping people out. That doesn't make it right, but if I'm willing to accept fault, others should too.

Well, in that case I'll start a German hate thread, or perhaps a general European hate thread, and see how people like that. I am assuming you are from Germany of course.
Plenty of those around already. Usualy off topics form other threads. But feel free.

So? Whats bad about that?


If you can't determine why hate is bad by now, I think you should invest in Special Ed.

So? Whats bad about that?
wether or not its american means nothing its a hate thread meaning that it will spark bitter arguments and create general dispise on both sides, resulting inhatrad fueds and complete disregard to what the other side says I know this becasue this is what happens in politcal threads that show dispise in their names for the other side.

Whether the US is an empire or not is a matter of opinion but I say no. It is a republic and therefore not an empire. I also do not believe that the US is imperialistic. Plus the US will never fully decline like the empires you sight because it is not an empire. Its unique form of goverment ensures that there is almost always a balance in the government and when there is not it rights itself very quickly. Because of this fact the US will not fully deline into oblivion.

but we have puerto rico, the US virgin islands, guam, american samoa, some other places. these are NOT fully integrated into the US. they are "possessions"

plus there are those military bases in various places in the world which are not US possessions.

FYI, all overseas military bases on foreign soil, including Guantanamo Bay Cuba, are still owned by their host nations. The U.S. simply holds use rights granted by treaty or leases on the properties. They are not U.S. territories and do not qualify as possessions.

The other ones are interesting:

Guam: Originally a Spanish colony, ceded to the Americans without a fight. Militarily conquered in the 1940's to drive out the Japanese after they invaded. Guam residents have full American citizenship, vote in all American elections, and have their own regional government. The U.S. government has already indicated that they could be independent if they wanted to, and in 2002, by order of their local legislature, a referendum was to be held to determine the future of the island. Out of the residents 16,000 eligible voters, only 15 people bothered to even register for the election and the whole thing was cancelled. Does that sound like opression to you?

USVI: Residents have enjoyed full US citizenship since 1927, and the VI has elected representatives in the US Congress and its own elected governor. 70% of the VI economy is dependent on US based tourism, and as a result no organized movement for their independence has ever been formed. Both the US Organic Act and the UN have affirmed their right to independence if their citizens want it.

Samoa: For all practical purposes, it's a posession in name only. Residents maintain dual American citizenship and can vote in American elections, but they are ruled by an odd mix of modern democratic legislature and traditional tribal leadership. The US maintains no military presence on the islands and maintains no portion of thier government. They can have independence any time they want it, but as an American territory they enjoy access to government money and use our taxpayer dollars to fund many social and health programs that they couldn't otherwise afford (American Samoa doesn't have any kind of real economy...more than 75% of their land is still communally owned by the tribes, and it is too remote for most tourists).

Puerto Rico: Independence activists have repeatedly had the Puerto Rican people vote on independence, and the people of PR have repeatedly voted against it by wide margins. They LIKE their status, and there are many Puerto Ricans who are actively trying to turn it into the 51st state (though their citizens voted against that too).

So I ask you all this...can a nation be an empire if its foreign territories all WILLINGLY place themselves under its influence?

If you can't determine why hate is bad by now, I think you should invest in Special Ed.
It's not bad if you hate the right thing. Or are you so enlightened that you are one with the cosmos and don't hate anything or anyone?

So I ask you all this...can a nation be an empire if its foreign territories all WILLINGLY place themselves under its influence?

Lets not forget the Hawaiians, who actually rebelled and then asked to be adopted into the US.

It is a republic and therefore not an empire.
So was Rome, France, The Dutch Republic, the Soviet Union, even England for a while.
I also do not believe that the US is imperialistic.
Then what are they doing in Iraq? Certainly not waging war to liberate the people. Cause the people had been opressed by a naughty dictator, who for a while was their whipping boy, for a while before the champion of democracy decided to liberate them.

It's not bad if you hate the right thing. Or are you so enlightened that you are one with the cosmos and don't hate anything or anyone?

Oh. And I'm curious to who determines whether it is the "right" thing to hate? Your religion? What?

Hatred in any way, shape, or form can be easily distorted which is why I don't believe in hatred.

And I don't think I implied that I held the cosmos...I can strongly dislike people for a reason, but blindly hating someone is against my moral code.

It's not bad if you hate the right thing. Or are you so enlightened that you are one with the cosmos and don't hate anything or anyone?

I hate people who walk on the left side of the sidewalk. What the hell is their problem?

I don't see what's wrong with hating the American empire.

I hate people who walk on the left side of the sidewalk. What the hell is their problem?
Dunno. Ask them next time you see them.

Then what are they doing in Iraq? Certainly not waging war to liberate the people. Cause the people had been opressed by a naughty dictator, who for a while was their whipping boy, for a while before the champion of democracy decided to liberate them.

What is the US doing in Iraq? Primarily: Securing the security of America
Secondarily(Is that a word?): Liberating the Iraqi people.

Dunno. Ask them next time you see them.

Perhaps tomorrow after I am good and liquored up.

Still it wasn't the British that nearly annihilated them in the end, was it?

Interesting historical fact: The Cherokee sided with the Confederacy in the civil war, and actively worked against Union interests. Many of the politicians who authorized their expulsion from the Georgia Tennessee area did so because they still considered them to be an enemy. The US had previously recognized the right of the Cherokee nation to exist, but made a concious decision to dismantle that nation after it had effectively engaged them in war.

Why this fact is relegated to a minor historical footnote is beyond me.

I don't see what's wrong with hating the American empire.

It's sad that by the 21st century people still haven't figured out what's wrong with hating in general.

What is the US doing in Iraq? Primarily: Securing the security of America
Against what? Saddams WMD's who could be deployed within 45 minutes? Or to stop his relentless support of AQ?
Secondarily(Is that a word?): Liberating the Iraqi people.
Thats just something they came up with after it showed he didn't do either of the above two.

We occupy a huge chunk of Mexico?

http://media.maps101.com/SUB/STATE_THEMATIC/nmhist2.gif

http://media.maps101.com/SUB/STATE_THEMATIC/nmhist2.gif
Didn't Texas belong to Mexico as well?

What is the US doing in Iraq? Primarily: Securing the security of America
Secondarily(Is that a word?): Liberating the Iraqi people.

Oy vey. While I find your blind support of what you hear on the news endearing and naive...geez...it's not ALL hamburgers and fireworks...

Against what? Saddams WMD's who could be deployed within 45 minutes? Or to stop his relentless support of AQ?

Thats just somethng they came up with after it showed he didn't do either of the above two.

Saddam had the plans for nuclear weapons, he was actively engaging in finding the parts, and had the US not invaded it would have only been a matter of time before Saddam had a nuke. And when he had that nuke Saddam probably would have sold it to the highest bidder.

The link to AQ was weak, i'll admit that. However, his link with Islamic fundamentalists was anything but. Saddam constantly engaged in talks, and let fundamentalist leaders stay in his palaces.

If you say so.

Didn't Texas belong to Mexico as well?

Not all of it. And the Mexicans occupying the areas it did were more sympathetic to the US than they were to Mexico. Mexico actually attacked their own revolting Tejanos.

then explain that huge chunk of mexico we occupy. or how we own the black hills.


Texas wanted to be a free nation. Spain/Mexico invaded, we helped, Texas joined us. Need anymore of a pwning?

I don't see what's wrong with hating the American empire.


Wanna see whats wrong with hating America? Because when you people start threads on the internet like this, it just makes you the worse offender. Quit spreading your hate in the disguise of "friendly conversation".


And I know I'm gonna get people replying to this thread who are pissed off. But too bad. Stop thinking America is a bad place just because we didn't adopt the Euro or decide to gas or own people just because they think something different.

In other words, to refer to America as an Imperialistic nation NOW because of actions that took place well over a hundred years ago is quite foolish.

and exactly which parts of the roman empire were part of the empire and which weren't, and when? most of it, for most of the existence of the empire, had been conquered or otherwise controlled for much more than 100 years. and most of them were quite willing to stay there.

Wanna see whats wrong with hating America? Because when you people start threads on the internet like this, it just makes you the worse offender. Quit spreading your hate in the disguise of "friendly conversation"

Amen sistah, amen.

Saddam had the plans for nuclear weapons, he was actively engaging in finding the parts, and had the US not invaded it would have only been a matter of time before Saddam had a nuke. And when he had that nuke Saddam probably would have sold it to the highest bidder.
Oh yeah. I forgot about the new line. He had plans. North Korea has plans as well. And WMD's. And it's an opressive regime. Yet your hill billie in the White House doesn't seem to have plans to invade them.

The link to AQ was weak, i'll admit that.
More like non existend. The US had stronger ties to Osama then Saddam ever did.
However, his link with Islamic fundamentalists was anything but. Saddam constantly engaged in talks, and let fundamentalist leaders stay in his palaces.

Yeah. Cause Saddam was such an Islamist fundy, huh? I seem to remember he called for a Jihad several times and nothing happened.

Texas wanted to be a free nation. Spain/Mexico invaded, we helped, Texas joined us. Need anymore of a pwning?

that somewhat explains about a third of our mexican holdings. and since you seem to think spain still controlled mexico in the 1830s and 40s, perhaps you should rethink that 'pwning'

I mean c'mon. Look at your god damn countries. You think America is bad? Then don't pay attention to them. Live in your perfect fantasy country while your next door nieghbor plans to kill you for being a christian

And I know I'm gonna get people replying to this thread who are pissed off. But too bad. Stop thinking America is a bad place just because we didn't adopt the Euro or decide to gas or own people just because they think something different.

I hate America because of its attitudes towards sex. I hate it for its élitism. I hate it for its hypocricy. I could care less about euros, I don't even like the concept of money. What I do care about is making the world a freer place. As long as the US government bans "sodomy" and other stupid crimes while butting into other country's business, I will continue to hate it.

Oh yeah. I forgot about the new line. He had plans. North Korea has plans as well. And WMD's. And it's an opressive regime. Yet your hill billie in the White House doesn't seem to have plans to invade them.

More like non existend. The US had stronger ties to Osama then Saddam ever did.

Yeah. Cause Saddam was such an Islamist fundy, huh? I seem to remember he called for a Jihad several times and nothing happened.

Actually, N. Korea has working WMDs thanks to the inactivity when Clinton was president. If we invaded them now they would probably launch those weapons at the west coast. That is not exactly what the American people want. (or me since I live in L.A.)

The US had strong ties to Osama? Where did ya here that, CNN?

Actually, Saddam was a supporter of Islamic fundamentalists. Thank you for admitting that.

that somewhat explains about a third of our mexican holdings. and since you seem to think spain still controlled mexico in the 1830s and 40s, perhaps you should rethink that 'pwning'


*rethinks*.............um.........screw Spain...? <.< >.>.....I just wanted to throw you off...yeah...thats right

I hate America because of its attitudes towards sex. I hate it for its élitism. I hate it for its hypocricy. I could care less about euros, I don't even like the concept of money. What I do care about is making the world a freer place. As long as the US government bans "sodomy" and other stupid crimes while butting into other country's business, I will continue to hate it.
What? No complaints about anime censorship?

The US's attitude towards sex is anything but stupid

The US had strong ties to Osama? Where did ya here that, CNN?

So he wasn't build up by the CIA to do battle against the naughty commies?

http://media.maps101.com/SUB/STATE_THEMATIC/nmhist2.gif

There's two problems with that. First, Mexico actively sought out American settlers and brought them to both California and Texas. These people were given Mexican citizenship and quickly became the majority population of those areas. In both California and Texas the MAJORITY rebelled against their own government and declared independence. Both the Bear Flag Revolt and the original secession of Texas were achieved by the citizens of those areas without American military intervention.

That leaves with Nevada, Utah, south Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Those areas were almost completely unpopulated desert (aside from a handful of Indian tribes and a few old Spanish missions) and only held a few thousand Mexican citizens across its entire vast expanse. Not only did the US government PAY about $300 million modern dollars for this land, but the Mexicans who already lived there were never removed and a couple of their families still own that land to this very day. NOBODY had their land stolen.

Obviously, I reject your argument that we are "occupying" northern Mexico.

You see guys, what I really like to think is "America is the r0xx0rz!!" But its not, I admit that. But stop looking to America for someone to complain about. Simple as that. This right here, this conversation is what stirs up the hate. And sure, sodomy is great fun. But thats the government who banned it, not the people.

The US's attitude towards sex is anything but stupid

It's probably the worst part about the American empire, except for the censorship of anime, which ties directly into American sexual repression and wouldn't even occur otherwise.

It's probably the worst part about the American empire, except for the censorship of anime, which ties directly into American sexual repression and wouldn't even occur otherwise.


Sure, its censored, but that doesn't stop ol' Bill Clinton from spankin' to it does it? ;)

I hate America because of its attitudes towards sex. I hate it for its élitism. I hate it for its hypocricy. I could care less about euros, I don't even like the concept of money. What I do care about is making the world a freer place. As long as the US government bans "sodomy" and other stupid crimes while butting into other country's business, I will continue to hate it.

elitism, hypocrisy...Hmmm...I wonder what other countries qualify? *cough*

And by hating it you think that it should just be wiped off the face of the earth? With it's people? Elimination of a nationality or ethnicity...seems to me like you're hiding behind a mask of tolerance without actually understanding what it means.

elitism, hypocrisy...Hmmm...I wonder what other countries qualify? *cough*

And by hating it you think that it should just be wiped off the face of the earth? With it's people? Elimination of a nationality or ethnicity...seems to me like you're hiding behind a mask of tolerance without actually understanding what it means.


Preach on brother. Preach on.

elitism, hypocrisy...Hmmm...I wonder what other countries qualify? *cough*

I'm sure plenty, but America doesn't get a get-out-of-jail-free card.

And by hating it you think that it should just be wiped off the face of the earth? With it's people? Elimination of a nationality or ethnicity...seems to me like you're hiding behind a mask of tolerance without actually understanding what it means.

I just object to American culture and government. I have no intention of killing anyone.

Sure, its censored, but that doesn't stop ol' Bill Clinton from spankin' to it does it?

In many cases, there isn't much left to spank to. I'm surprised they left MSG SEED episode 24 as unedited as they did (Cagalli is seen wearing nothing but panties and a really small shirt-like thing only 6 inches tall), though the original was far more sexual.

I'm sure plenty, but America doesn't get a get-out-of-jail-free card.



I just object to American culture and government. I have no intention of killing anyone.



In many cases, there isn't much left to spank to. I'm surprised they left MSG SEED episode 24 as unedited as they did (Cagalli is seen wearing nothing but panties and a really small shirt-like thing only 6 inches tall), though the original was far more sexual.


Oh your right. Thats why in the american version of the Bastard series you see tits and ass. My bad

I just object to American culture and government. I have no intention of killing anyone.


You object American culture? What kind of regurgitated crap is that? Culture isn't summarized by major corporations in the country. There is no such thing as "American culture". Yeah, I'm American. Does that mean I'm obese and watch MTV? Errr...noooooo. If you're going for that rebel/anarchist thing you're not allowed to object a culture. You're allowed to object government. Objecting culture is against rebel rules...Duh.

Indiru if only people were more like you....OPPS! There goes my american elitism. My bad. But hey, its not like minorities are oppresed all over the world is it?

Indiru if only people were more like you....OPPS! There goes my american elitism. My bad. But hey, its not like minorities are oppresed all over the world is it?

Keep your cover up! You don't want to show them what stereotypical American pigs all of us are...c'mon...

Oh your right. Thats why in the american version of the Bastard series you see tits and ass. My bad

If you smuggle it into the US, then yes. It is possible to get uncensored versions of some anime series in the US, but, particularly on TV, they are heavily censored.

You object American culture? What kind of regurgitated crap is that? Culture isn't summarized by major corporations in the country. There is no such thing as "American culture". Yeah, I'm American. Does that mean I'm obese and watch MTV? Errr...noooooo. If you're going for that rebel/anarchist thing you're not allowed to object a culture. You're allowed to object government. Objecting culture is against rebel rules...Duh.

There is definately such a thing as "American culture". You eat apple pie with a fork, you believe in capitalism, elected government, and most likely a form of Christianity. You speak English and almost certainly nothing else. Those are just a few elements of American culture.

I try but sometimes I just wanna break out the KKK uniform and eat McDonalds.

You speak English and almost certainly nothing else.


Congratz, you qualify as an idiot.

There is definately such a thing as "American culture". You eat apple pie with a fork, you believe in capitalism, elected government, and most likely a form of Christianity. You speak English and almost certainly nothing else. Those are just a few elements of American culture.

Yes, but are all Americans "American-culturized"? It just so happens that I prefer strawberry tarts and eat them with SPORKS! YES SPORKS! That's like saying all Muslims are terrorists or all liberals are pot smoking tree huggers.

And if you want reality, I think you need to wake up and smell the diversity man.

ALSO, Assuming things makes an a-s-s out of u and m-e

You eat apple pie with a fork


Beware, for forks now cause global hating

Yes, but are all Americans "American-culturized"? It just so happens that I prefer strawberry tarts and eat them with SPORKS! YES SPORKS! That's like saying all Muslims are terrorists or all liberals are pot smoking tree huggers.

That was more of an example. Still, those things are quintessentially American.

That was more of an example. Still, those things are quintessentially American.

AND MOUSTACHES AND CHEESE ARE QUINTISSENTIALLY FRENCH! AND CRUMPETS AND POLITENESS ARE QUINTISSENTIALLY BRITISH! AND CLOGS AND WINDMILLS ARE QUINTISSENTIALLY DUTCH!

Honestly, I don't see the issue here. I think you've run out of things to say. If you have a thing against McDonald's, MTV, or Hollywood, fine. You do that. Just don't blame people you don't know for stuff that they apparently "quintissentially" are.

So he wasn't build up by the CIA to do battle against the naughty commies?

I doubt it, especially considering that over 80% of the arms trade with Iraq dealt in Soviet armnaments (the second largest contributor was the French,) and the communist ideal Saddam used was heavily inspired by the USSR. We wanted him to fight the naughty Iranis, and he did, and we did not really support him in any way significantly more significantly than simply turning a blind eye to it. When he attacked Kuwait to try and restore his fiscal standing after losing to Iran though, we grew kind of agitated, in part due to a fair share of hostage taking (sound famaliar?)

First off... I now cannot eat my pie with a fork or any other eating utensil besides a spork!? Ziggies, for great jutsice! We must unveil the evil that is the spork...

Anyway, why are you stereotyping American culture, Letila? We speak nothing else besides English?

Today in Spanish I got my quiz back. I got a B+.

I'm not some overweight idiot who drools at the concept of Kentucky Fried Chicken and a Big Mac to go.

I don't watch much TV. In fact, I barely watch ANY TV at all, therefore I do not plop my ass on the couch and munch on Pop-tarts and Chee-tos while I watch the Gilligan's Island rerun.

I don't go to school and beat up the black kids, or the Asian kids, or the European kids, or...

I know for a fact capitalism isn't a form of economy where fat people twirl their mustaches and laugh manically as they lash their whips at the workers in the coal mine.


And what is it with you and Gundam SEED, huh? I DEMAND ANSWERS!

I know for a fact capitalism isn't a form of economy where fat people twirl their mustaches and laugh manically as they lash their whips at the workers in the coal mine.




No? Dammit! Just crush all my dreams why don't you.

Who the hell cares if you eat with a spork? What does it matter?

I think it is. For one thing, most of the US is on land taken from Native Americans or bought from people who stole it from them. While that was a long time ago, I don't think 225-150 year old conquests stop being conquests. Indeed, the US almost committed genocide against them.
ALMOST!?! THE HELL!?! The United States definitely committed genocide against the Native Americans by current international law standards.

LETLIA: You really can't complain about it being an old conquest. About everyones country used to belong to somebody else. Taking land is what people did in the old days.

Is the pope catholic? Read American Empire by Andrew J. Bacevich, published by Harvard University Press and Charles Beard, one of our greatest historians.

We occupy a huge chunk of Mexico?
Some whiny morons feel the land we booted the Mexicans off of in the 1840's was illegally taken, even though Mexicans fired the first shot.

ALMOST!?! THE HELL!?! The United States definitely committed genocide against the Native Americans by current international law standards.

maybe he meant

"were almost completely successful in committing genocide..."

Some whiny morons feel the land we booted the Mexicans off of in the 1840's was illegally taken, even though Mexicans fired the first shot.

the Texans were staying on land that belonged to Mexico. They decided they didn't want to follow some of Mexico's laws(one of which outlawed slavery) so they tried to revolt. The Alamo was Mexico trying to put down a revolt in their own country.

I hate America because of its attitudes towards sex. I hate it for its élitism. I hate it for its hypocricy. I could care less about euros, I don't even like the concept of money. What I do care about is making the world a freer place. As long as the US government bans "sodomy" and other stupid crimes while butting into other country's business, I will continue to hate it.

The US government bans sodomy? I seem to remember the Texas law that banned sodomy was struck down by the US Supreme Court.

And why is elitism such a bad thing. We just are so much better at kicking ass than everyone else.

I'd be greatly appreciative if you'd outline a single government (so long as it isn't involved in a civil war) that doesn't butt into other countries business. The much vaunted Kyoto Protocol was definitely an in-butting, as was the international criminal court. The difference being that we are big and bad enough to be able to do so.

The US government bans sodomy? I seem to remember the Texas law that banned sodomy was struck down by the US Supreme Court.

And why is elitism such a bad thing. We just are so much better at kicking ass than everyone else.

I'd be greatly appreciative if you'd outline a single government (so long as it isn't involved in a civil war) that doesn't butt into other countries business. The much vaunted Kyoto Protocol was definitely an in-butting, as was the international criminal court. The difference being that we are big and bad enough to be able to do so.

All powerful countries butt into other peoples affairs. Countries who get involved in conflicts can spill the problem into other peoples borders. America managed to stay out of WWI until we simply couldn't no it anymore.
England and France were going to pick a side in our Civil War as soon as someone won a decisive battle. Thank everything for Gettysburg!

Some whiny morons feel the land we booted the Mexicans off of in the 1840's was illegally taken, even though Mexicans fired the first shot.

even if true, nobody is talking about legality (though sending your troops across a border that you had explicitly recognized when you tried to buy the land between there and the new border from mexico seems a lot like an invasion to me).

we are talking about empire. true or false: the united states is made up to a large extent from lands gained in conquest.

A good example of this would be how the US supported Pinochet, whose capitalist dictatorship overthrew a socialist democracy. Pinochet killed 3,000 people and tortured thousands more, but the US placed sanctions on Chile before the coup and encouraged instability that helped overthrow the democratic government.

It's funny how the left always condemns Pinochet for allegedly killing 3,000 people, yet they turn a blind eye to Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, Mikhail Gorbachev, Nelson Mandela, Deng Xiaoping, Ho Chi Minh, and others who killed many times that number. Moreover, I have yet to see evidence of Pinochet's purported tyranny. I can't help but notice that not a single moderate or conservative has ever denounced Pinochet, only the radical left. Which doesn't prove anything, of course, but is worth noting. And if Pinochet was such a dictator, why did he hold an election- just as he said he would, when he said he would- and then voluntarily step down? And what about the new constitution he drafted (with the help of two former presidents of Chile) that at least 68% of the population approved? If Allende was such a great guy, how come one third of Chilean workers went on strike, demanding his resignation? Allende not only royally screwed Chile's economy, but he was also an all-around a**hole. Whatever his faults, Pinochet saved his country. He overthrew a rampantly corrupt, lawless government and turned his country from an impoverished dunghole with an imploded economy into an economic superpower.

And if someone wants to refute my claim, do it Letila/Free Soviets/Unified West African style; that is, politely, logically, and without flaming.

even if true, nobody is talking about legality (though sending your troops across a border that you had explicitly recognized when you tried to buy the land between there and the new border from mexico seems a lot like an invasion to me).

we are talking about empire. true or false: the united states is made up to a large extent from lands gained in conquest.

All countries are made up of conquered lands. Before the Roman Empire much of Europe was simply various tribes living from France through Russia. One group of people gets more powerful than the other and conquers them. This doesn't excuse what the U.S. did in the Mexican War which I do believe to be nothing but a land grab, but it is nothing new.

By the way, if there was a snotty, pompous tone in my above post, I apologize.

Yeah, the Mexican land grabbed by America was an act of conquest, I have no doubt about it. But I don't thnik there was necessarily anything wrong with that. Conquest was a fact of life for any country and it was the only way they could get really strong. But it's just a little annoying when people try to pretend it's something it isn't.

All countries are made up of conquered lands. Before the Roman Empire much of Europe was simply various tribes living from France through Russia. One group of people gets more powerful than the other and conquers them. This doesn't excuse what the U.S. did in the Mexican War which I do believe to be nothing but a land grab, but it is nothing new.

well, most of them anyway. and when they are quite successful at it they qualifiy as empires in my book. That is why russia is an empire, the us is an empire, etc.

to take your point about it being nothing new one step further, i would argue that it is in the very nature of the state to be imperial. the entire history of centralized rule and states has been one of shrinking the number of politically independent groups of people through conquest and subjugation. this isn't a justification for the practice, or even an excuse. quite the opposite in fact - from my point of view at least.

there is also an argument to be made that in the past half century or so the elites of the modern nation states of the global north have started learning the lessons that the feudal lords and slave holders learned: you can subjugate people and their resources and collect tribute from them in ways that don't openly require the naked use of force to do so. once you have originally acquired their lands and resources, you merely have to maintain a landlord situation, where you can charge them rent to earn a living (using machines that you own, on property that you own, with resources that you own, living on land that you own, etc). and you don't even have to be the one directly enforcing that status; an elite can easily be created and maintained there to do it for you. and you can also use this elite to collect further amounts of tribute from the subjugated by giving massive loans to the elite, nominally for national projects, which then must be paid for by the mass of people through taxation. then setup a payment schedule so that they never will get out of your debt (paying just the interest each year or, as is more often the case, a percentage of it). within a decade or two they will both have paid bck the original loan amount and then some, and will owe you more money than ever before. its quite a good deal for those reaping the benefits, really.

Yes, it was taken by conquest. And there were problems with why the Mexicans fired the first shots, but after the war we did pay mexico for the land we took, it may not have been very much, but it was a better rate than what we paid Napoleon for Louisiana and The Czar for Alaska.

And, it was a *defensive* war, started in response to a direct attack, and, the US claimed that the land Taylor had his troops on was US land, and the attempt to buy the land, was actually just an attempt to buy the Mexicans off.

On the other hand Canada...

r0xx0r5 mA4 50xx0r5