NationStates Jolt Archive

So I think just to shut them up, we should implement American Imperialism, and annex whatever we can annex. Genocide? Get OUR TROOPS in there, stop the genocide, and annex the place. Seing as Genocide occurs...a lot, we can probably build up the American Empire. Iraq? ANNEX! Rwanda? ANNEX! Just lets annex places like this!

If you're building an empire, you need a good emperor. You need someone like Nixon and Kissenger with Real Politik.

So I think just to shut them up, we should implement American Imperialism, and annex whatever we can annex. Genocide? Get OUR TROOPS in there, stop the genocide, and annex the place. Seing as Genocide occurs...a lot, we can probably build up the American Empire. Iraq? ANNEX! Rwanda? ANNEX! Just lets annex places like this!
Good to see more Americans finally dropping all pretense.

If you're building an empire, you need a good emperor. You need someone like Nixon and Kissenger with Real Politik.

Bah, when Nixon (one of the greatest presidents of the U.S.A.) died, it was a dark day for America. Of course, we'd still be a democratic Empire and all, but Nixon would easily be a great President again.

Nixon for 2008!!!

If Nixon were brought back to life as a head in a jar like he was in Futurama, I'd vote for him. Especially if he had that huge robot body. "Nixon's back!"

So I think just to shut them up, we should implement American Imperialism, and annex whatever we can annex. Genocide? Get OUR TROOPS in there, stop the genocide, and annex the place. Seing as Genocide occurs...a lot, we can probably build up the American Empire. Iraq? ANNEX! Rwanda? ANNEX! Just lets annex places like this!
Arrrrgh! No, no, no, no, no! A thousand times no! We don't need them, don't want them and can't afford them! :headbang:

So I think just to shut them up, we should implement American Imperialism, and annex whatever we can annex. Genocide? Get OUR TROOPS in there, stop the genocide, and annex the place. Seing as Genocide occurs...a lot, we can probably build up the American Empire. Iraq? ANNEX! Rwanda? ANNEX! Just lets annex places like this!

I would respect that. It's intellectualy honest, at least.

If Nixon were brought back to life as a head in a jar like he was in Futurama, I'd vote for him. Especially if he had that huge robot body. "Nixon's back!"

Only if he made Zap Branigan the head of the UN.

Only if he made Zap Branigan the head of the UN.

Okay, but he has to put on some pants, first.

I've been saying this for years! At least we'd treat everyone with a bit of respect, better than some!Largest Death Toll From Chemical Weapons Attack
The greatest number of people killed in a single chemical weapons attack is estimated at 4,000, when President Saddam Hussein of Iraq attacked members of his country's Kurdish minority at Halabja, Iraq, in March 1988. The attack was ostensibly punishment for the support the Kurds had given to Iran in the Iran–Iraq war. Guinness (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/)

I say we take Canada first.

Don't make us sick Celine Dione and Tom Green on you. You never fully recovered from the last time we did that.

Don't make us sick Celine Dione and Tom Green on you. You never fully recovered from the last time we did that.
I just want a place to send the hippies, thats all!

You'll probably have to get rid of democracy first. Or at least get some decent sensorship going. Just look at how much fuzz people are making about the losses in Iraq alone. Imagine what occupying even more countries would be like!

You'll need someone who can convince people to give up the power they hold over the government. It would probably be best to start with smaller things. Maybe press censorship of some of the more unsettling realities of war, like combat losses or breaches of human rights or somesuch. And it would probably be a good idea to get through some legislation making it easier to surveillance and arrest people, to have an easier time getting at troublemakers. This could be pressed through if you were to focus on external threats and the emphathise the need for heightened security and protection, though in the long run, if you're going to go full-blown imperial power, annexing left and right, it would probably be best to "inspire the fear of God" in people, to put it that way. Get a heavenly mandate to rescue a morally corrupt world. The terrorists seem to have that thing going for them, at least.

Well, those are just ideas, but I think if you go down that path, you could really get American imperialism going. Good luck!

I just want a place to send the hippies, thats all!

Send 'em to France. It's easy, just tell them that Jim Morrison is buried there.

Okay, but he has to put on some pants, first.

No deal!

Send 'em to France. It's easy, just tell them that Jim Morrison is buried there.
LOL ,thats half the battle. But whoo will buy them plane tickets? Working for Greenpeace isn't excactly high paying, I've heard.

LOL ,thats half the battle. But whoo will buy them plane tickets? Working for Greenpeace isn't excactly high paying, I've heard.

That's even easier. Tell them to swim. I mean, it's good for the enviroment (no fossil fuels being burned), and it's good for you. Plus, we'll sell it as a charity event- Swim the Atlantic, and the proceeds will go to charity. It's win-win, baby!

I've been saying this for years! At least we'd treat everyone with a bit of respect, better than some! Guinness (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/)


Ah, Halabja? Doubt still remains as to who was actually responsible - whether it was Iraq or Iran, and indeed the US initially blamed Iran. However... it should be noted that if it was Iraq, then they did so using intelligence passed on to them by the Americans who knew that it was being used to guide the deployment and use of chemical weapons. What was that about respect again?

You'll need someone who can convince people to give up the power they hold over the government. It would probably be best to start with smaller things. Maybe press censorship of some of the more unsettling realities of war, like combat losses or breaches of human rights or somesuch. And it would probably be a good idea to get through some legislation making it easier to surveillance and arrest people, to have an easier time getting at troublemakers. This could be pressed through if you were to focus on external threats and the emphathise the need for heightened security and protection,

Check. What's step two?

Yeah, we might as well amalgamate some smaller nations, since everyone is convinced we are imperialist anyway :rolleyes: Same for taking Iraq's oil, since they think we're there to steal it anyway :p

Same for taking Iraq's oil, since they think we're there to steal it anyway :p

Hey, its almost traditional now. Stealing Iraqi oil was what started the whole Gulf War malarky.

If you hadn't noticed, America is an Empire. We control 2/3rds of the worlds surface (thanks to naval superiority over the whole world), economy (the US government has the highest GDP in the world, Walmart is 5th by itself), and military (hundreds of bases all over the world). Plus we hold political sway over many countries around the world (thanks to world debt caused by the IMF and World Bank).

Do you know how the US causes the world debt? They (or the IMF, or the World Bank) go to a poor nation and offer them a huge loan to make improvements to their country. But, there is a catch. They can only spend the money on US companies, thus they never get to use the money (it goes from a US bank to a US construction or engineering company). Then after the improvements are put in, these countries usually need people to run things (oil wells for example) which need US degrees, so they have to higher US personnel. And along with that they have to pay the interest on the debt still, and try to start paying off the debt by a certain year. Usually there is a time limit it has to be paid off, set at a rate so that it can never be paid off fully in time, if at all. And if they get resorces (for example oil), then 75% (low estimate) of the money made off of the resources go to the US company, and the country only gets the rest. Of that 25%, about 22% goes to paying the interest on the debt and only about 2-3% is acctually available to use for the country.

Then the country defaults on the loan, and has to pay the US back like someone who barrowed money from a loan shark. They pay back with a "pound of flesh": Military bases, UN votes, governmental reforms, whatever the US wants. Thus we keep the world enthralled.

Yeah, but we still need to strive higher and higher, for Excellence.

Ugh... The reason everyone is hyped about imperialism is because imperialism isn't only about owning colonies, its about domination.
As Neo R said, it's not about the oil. It's about establishing presence and domination in the Middle East.
As Eutrusca said, colonies are too expensive and look bad on the record. Military bases are much cheaper, although they take a bite out of the budget too.
Is the US imperialist like the British Empire was in its heyday? Nope.
Is current US foreign policy imperialist? Yup.

As Neo R said, it's not about the oil. It's about establishing presence and domination in the Middle East.

Which only leads to the question: why the particular interest in establishing presence and domination there as opposed to central Africa, for example? What makes the Middle East particularly attractive to the US?

Which only leads to the question: why the particular interest in establishing presence and domination there as opposed to central Africa, for example? What makes the Middle East particularly attractive to the US?You raise a real good point, but it does not contradict mine.
More than just the oil. Consider that Nigeria has a lot of oil too, it just doesn't really have the infrastructure to be much of an influence. America doesn't really get its oil from the ME anyway. What the US wants though, is a lot of influence in a region that affects the oil prices on the markets.
There's a couple of other reasons why the US would want influence in the area: Fabulously wealthy people that have an influence in the world-wide cash flow, enemies (Iran, Syria), etc... A lot of this can be linked to the fact that the region has oil, but it's what that means and not the oil itself that motivates the US.

Which only leads to the question: why the particular interest in establishing presence and domination there as opposed to central Africa, for example? What makes the Middle East particularly attractive to the US?

As someone pointed out, it's not that the US needs that oil so much as growing markets in China and Russia do. It makes sense, really; if you control the Middle East, you control the flow of oil to your rivals. Simple, no?

It makes sense, really; if you control the Middle East, you control the flow of oil to your rivals. Simple, no?
Underhanded, yes?

Especially insofar as these are 'rivals' and not 'enemies'. America never plays an even hand.

More than just the oil.

A lot of this can be linked to the fact that the region has oil, but it's what that means and not the oil itself that motivates the US.

it's not about the oil.

What the US wants though, is a lot of influence in a region that affects the oil prices on the markets.


One of these statements is not like the others, can you tell which one it is?


Intended in a good natured way, Laerod.

As someone pointed out, it's not that the US needs that oil so much as growing markets in China and Russia do. It makes sense, really; if you control the Middle East, you control the flow of oil to your rivals. Simple, no?

Another case of the US thinking too small. Give me control over the planet's oxygen supply and I don't give a shit about who controls the oil.

The US ruling class is smart enough to know that in a world of billions of people domination is best achieved by proxies of various sorts, rather than active military presences. The US lacks the resources to maintain an empire of the sort you envision, which is one reason it, under sensible leadership, will not build one. The current regime does not qualify as "sensible leadership."

The reason Bush's policy is seen as so controversial is largely because considerable sectors of the elite are opposed to it. Firstly it is astonishingly dangerous; it threatens the basic international order in effect since World War II and developed further during the Cold War, increasing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the threat of terrorism. Wise members of the ruling class know that such threats are as dangerous to them, at least, as they are to ordinary citizens, and to arrogantly ignore them is the height of incompetence and stupidity. Secondly it is a serious drain on resources, which hurts the US capability to project power elsewhere. This is becoming increasingly clear in Latin America, for instance. Objectives concerning control of oil and domination of the Middle East could probably have been achieved more subtly, and certainly without the long record of incompetence marking the ocupation in Iraq.

One of these statements is not like the others, can you tell which one it is?


Intended in a good natured way, Laerod.Muahaha. :rolleyes: Note that you tooke the "it's not about the oil" quote out of context. Neo R is always pointing out that we're not stealing the oil that's there and if that's the only way you look at it, she's right.

Another case of the US thinking too small. Give me control over the planet's oxygen supply and I don't give a shit about who controls the oil.But McDonalds is already burning down rainforests left and right to make room for its green-house gas producing cattle...

The US ruling class is smart enough to know that in a world of billions of people domination is best achieved by proxies of various sorts, rather than active military presences. The US lacks the resources to maintain an empire of the sort you envision, which is one reason it, under sensible leadership, will not build one. The current regime does not qualify as "sensible leadership."

The reason Bush's policy is seen as so controversial is largely because considerable sectors of the elite are opposed to it. Firstly it is astonishingly dangerous; it threatens the basic international order in effect since World War II and developed further during the Cold War, increasing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the threat of terrorism. Wise members of the ruling class know that such threats are as dangerous to them, at least, as they are to ordinary citizens, and to arrogantly ignore them is the height of incompetence and stupidity. Secondly it is a serious drain on resources, which hurts the US capability to project power elsewhere. This is becoming increasingly clear in Latin America, for instance. Objectives concerning control of oil and domination of the Middle East could probably have been achieved more subtly, and certainly without the long record of incompetence marking the ocupation in Iraq.Who said imperialism needed to be profitable in the long run? I mean, look at Spain.

(I'm sorry. It's late and I should have put more emphasis on the fact that your post shows incredible insight. :D )

So I think just to shut them up, we should implement American Imperialism, and annex whatever we can annex. Genocide? Get OUR TROOPS in there, stop the genocide, and annex the place. Seing as Genocide occurs...a lot, we can probably build up the American Empire. Iraq? ANNEX! Rwanda? ANNEX! Just lets annex places like this!
AM radio awaits you.

AM radio awaits you.
ROFL

How true...