NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think the American form of "imperialism", as some have come to call it, is a positive force in the world?

Do you think the American form of "imperialism", as some have come to call it, is a positive force in the world?

No.

Do you think the American form of "imperialism", as some have come to call it, is a positive force in the world?

No. Not at all.

No.

Why is American global dominance bad?

Why is American global dominance bad?
Because it's about fucking up the ass half of the world, for the benefit of handful of already-privileged, greedy pigs?

No. Not at all.

Never did one good thing for anyone?

Ah, yes, because fighting a war to help others defend themselves against fascism is imperialism. :rolleyes:

Make your arguments out of something else besides false dichotomies and straw, please.

It could be argued that the USA would not have been strong enough, if it wasn't for their sudden imperial aims after years of isolationism, and resulting expansion in their military.

Never did one good thing for anyone?

Not nearly enough good for the vast majority, and far too much for those who were already well off.

It isn't innovation, discovery, and advancement I have a problem with, it's unreasonable and greed-headed profiteering on the mosery and ignorance of others that gets dodgy.

Because it's about fucking up the ass half of the world, for the benefit of handful of already-privileged, greedy pigs?

Would you trade American supremacy for German dominance? Perhaps Russia? Or maybe Japanese Imperialism? China?

Would you trade American supremacy for German dominance? Perhaps Russia? Or maybe Japanese Imperialism? China?

Ah, yes, because fighting a war to help others defend themselves against fascism is imperialism. :rolleyes:

Make your arguments out of something else besides false dichotomies and straw, please.

Would you trade American supremacy for German dominance? Perhaps Russia? Or maybe Japanese Imperialism? China?

How about instead of a choice form your false dichotomy, I choose option D) None of the above? How about we make do without imperialism entirely and give a tryto "live and let live"?

Imperialism is about greedy power mongers who want to hog all the resources or all the control from others. And my set of morals and beliefs tells me stealing from others for your own profit is wrong.

Ah, yes, because fighting a war to help others defend themselves against fascism is imperialism. :rolleyes:

Make your arguments out of something else besides false dichotomies and straw, please.

If American power ceases to be, there will be a giant power vacuum. Geopolitics teaches that some other national power will move to fill that void. Can you guarantee that an alternative global power will be as freedom-friendly as the United States?

Would you trade American supremacy for German dominance? Perhaps Russia? Or maybe Japanese Imperialism? China?

In fact I would rather have no dominance. Country's with too much power are dangerous.

Can you guarantee it won't?

And even if it meant a shift in imperialistic power, you're certainly very delusional if you think the rest of the world views you as "freedom friendly". There is nothing freedom friendly about the US imperialism.

It's all relative. I mean it would probably be vastly more 'freedom friendly' than Iranian imperialism for instance, and probably more friendly than Russian and Chinese imperialism.

Would you trade American supremacy for German dominance? Perhaps Russia? Or maybe Japanese Imperialism? China?

I'm not sure you understand what is meant by "American Imperialism". Just to help you out, the world wars don't classify as "American Imperialism". The proxy wars waged by the US in third world for the sake of the US's security and economy do.

If American power ceases to be, there will be a giant power vacuum. Geopolitics teaches that some other national power will move to fill that void. Can you guarantee that an alternative global power will be as freedom-friendly as the United States?

Can you guarantee it won't?

And even if it meant a shift in imperialistic power, you're certainly very delusional if you think the rest of the world views you as "freedom friendly". There is nothing freedom friendly about the US imperialism.

I understand and thats a good point. But if American "imperialism" is so evil, why do we give people we conquer freedom, democracy, and investment, while every other empire spread totalitarianism and killed and raped women and babies and beat the conquered people into submission..

Don't jump to extremes without an example or anything.

Do you think the American form of "imperialism", as some have come to call it, is a positive force in the world?
No. It has all of the shit bits of European Imperalism with none of the good stuff. So there we go.

I'm not sure you understand what is meant by "American Imperialism". Just to help you out, the world wars don't classify as "American Imperialism". The proxy wars waged by the US in third world for the sake of the US's security and economy do.

I understand and thats a good point. But if American "imperialism" is so evil, why do we give people we conquer freedom, democracy, and investment, while every other empire spread totalitarianism and killed and raped women and babies and beat the conquered people into submission..

Then let's try Canadian, Swiss, or Peruvian Imperialism, and see how that works out, mkay?

I would rather have EU imperialism, if that's possible.

Then let's try Canadian, Swiss, or Peruvian Imperialism, and see how that works out, mkay?

Heh, the Swiss don't have a good record for race relations. The Peruvians lose out with their corruption. I guess I could be ruled by maple syrup though, that would be okay.

I understand and thats a good point. But if American "imperialism" is so evil, why do we give people we conquer freedom, democracy, and investment, while every other empire spread totalitarianism and killed and raped women and babies and beat the conquered people into submission..

Do you think that people really want someone hovering over them telling them that they need democracy, they need civil rights. I don't disagree that they do, but people respond poorly to being told what to do.

In essence America is forcing its way of life upon people, maybe not so brutally as other empires have, but it is.

I understand and thats a good point. But if American "imperialism" is so evil, why do we give people we conquer freedom, democracy, and investment
Give them freedom under martial law, democracy with hand picked candidate and let "Private Security" vultures pick over what's left of the countries' industries?

Aye, cheers for that one.
while every other empire spread totalitarianism and killed and raped women and babies and beat the conquered people into submission..
Oh please...

It's all relative. I mean it would probably be vastly more 'freedom friendly' than Iranian imperialism for instance, and probably more friendly than Russian and Chinese imperialism.

Then let's try Canadian, Swiss, or Peruvian Imperialism, and see how that works out, mkay?

Then let's try Canadian, Swiss, or Peruvian Imperialism, and see how that works out, mkay?
Dull, Extra Dull, Ponchos! Yus!

I'd ask the people of South America. I'm sure they'd agree that all those US-backed dictators were a force for good, and that all those death squads were freedom death squads. That no-good Victor Jara was asking for it.

Any kind of imperialism is awful, but most especially to the country in power. There is no separation between illiberalism abroad and illiberalism at home; one will always expand the other and bring gains to the state over all aspects of life.

If America is evil, then why havent we kept the conquered nations like France, Germany, Japan?

We never "conquered" France. Germany and Japan were intentionally set up as bulwarks against the Soviets--so in a sense we did "keep" them.

Why havent we enslaved the Iraqi people and stolen all their oil already?

What, isn't killing tens of thousands of them enough? :rolleyes:

why do we invade nations if were just going to give them back?

Perhaps because we have selfish and immoral aims other than taking over the country? Of course, in Iraq, we didn't... we just failed miserably at the task.

Don't jump to extremes without an example or anything.

If America is evil, then why havent we kept the conquered nations like France, Germany, Japan? Why havent we enslaved the Iraqi people and stolen all their oil already? If we have immoral and selfish goals, why do we invade nations if were just going to give them back?

The EU by itself, not being a unified state but rather a federation of states, can hardly be imperialistic due to the many differences from within the very organisation.


Exactly, making it less dangerous. It would have economic imperialism though.

I would rather have EU imperialism, if that's possible.
The EU by itself, not being a unified state but rather a federation of states, can hardly be imperialistic due to the many differences from within the very organisation.

France, Germany, and the UK all had their chance at Imperialism. So did Belgium.

Even Italy and Greece did it, although that's a far while back.

No, sorry, I want to try something new this time ;)

No. It has all of the shit bits of European Imperalism with none of the good stuff. So there we go.

what sort of good things came out of european imperialism? thats incredibly arrogant btw.

Never did one good thing for anyone?

Can you provide an example of US imperialism helping anyone who wasn't USian?

I understand and thats a good point. But if American "imperialism" is so evil, why do we give people we conquer freedom, democracy, and investment, while every other empire spread totalitarianism and killed and raped women and babies and beat the conquered people into submission..

You do realise that the USA supported people like Pinochet and Saddam Hussein, right?

what sort of good things came out of european imperialism? thats incredibly arrogant btw.

90% of the infrastructure of former colonies.

If America is evil, then why havent we kept the conquered nations like France, Germany, Japan? Why havent we enslaved the Iraqi people and stolen all their oil already? If we have immoral and selfish goals, why do we invade nations if were just going to give them back?

Why indeed?

Why make a coup to depose Salvador Allende and put Pinochet into power, ushering an age of oppression and violence in Chile?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

This is just the first one I could pick off the top of my head, but things like that have happened all over the Central and South Americas in the last several decades.

Iraq is now in the throes of a civil war, with mass refugees fleeing their country, afraid for their lives. You call this altruistic? It's become worse than it used to be back when Saddam was in power, all thanks to imperialistic meddling.

So no, sorry, but you don't just "give the nations back" with the best of intentions; you install puppet states that will enslave themselves to US interests.

Can you provide an example of US imperialism helping anyone who wasn't USian?


Yes, anything that helps the people in the United States also affects the PQians likewise.

Why indeed?

Why make a coup to depose Salvador Allende and put Pinochet into power, ushering an age of oppression and violence in Chile?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

This is just the first one I could pick off the top of my head, but things like that have happened all over the Central and South Americas in the last several decades.

Iraq is now in the throes of a civil war, with mass refugees fleeing their country, afraid for their lives. You call this altruistic? It's become worse than it used to be back when Saddam was in power, all thanks to imperialistic meddling.

So no, sorry, but you don't just "give the nations back" with the best of intentions; you install puppet states that will enslave themselves to US interests.

And some very successful puppet states as well. IE: Japan, South Korea, Western Germany, Hell if you wanna go far as to say that any country that received the support of the U.S. was a puppet state, you might want to look at pretty much all of Europe, except for those under the influence of the USSR who refused aid, and the Marshall plan.

Yeah we defended Saddam as well as Iran in order to maintain the balance of power between two evils, so that one doesnt become dominant. We didnt support him because we agreed with his policies or liked his style. 2 small evils pit against each other is better than one giant evil that dominates the middle east.

Iran is actually a Theocracy because of a 1953 Coup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) performed by the US and UK.

And some very successful puppet states as well. IE: Japan, South Korea, Western Germany

Haiti?

Can you provide an example of US imperialism helping anyone who wasn't USian?



You do realise that the USA supported people like Pinochet and Saddam Hussein, right?

France - Free
Germany - Nazi-free
Iraq - Free
Afghanistan - Free
Caucasus - Soviet-free
Kuwait - Free
Nazi Genocide - Confronted and Stopped
Soviet Totalitarianism - Challenged and Defeated
And many more

Yeah we defended Saddam as well as Iran in order to maintain the balance of power between two evils, so that one doesnt become dominant. We didnt support him because we agreed with his policies or liked his style. 2 small evils pit against each other is better than one giant evil that dominates the middle east.

Iraq - Free
Afghanistan - Free
...
Kuwait - Free

:rolleyes:

If America is evil, then why havent we kept the conquered nations like France, Germany, Japan?

Nominally, we haven't, but we have de facto. Hence all of the various multinational organizations and arrangements such as NATO, Bretton Woods, the IMF, WTO etc. that serve as a political cartel to protect a statist financial and industrial elite from nations that, drawing a page from the Prisoner's Dilemma, would 'compete' by liberalizing.

Why havent we enslaved the Iraqi people and stolen all their oil already?

We have.

If we have immoral and selfish goals, why do we invade nations if were just going to give them back?

I rather dislike your use of the abstract collective. 'We' are not the Federal government, even if we do the ceremony of perforating a piece of paper annually. They are their own particular interest with their own ends, and whatever they do does not reflect poorly on us.

90% of the infrastructure of former colonies.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!! You wanna say that with countries such as Vietnam? such as Cambodia? such as all of Africa? Such as the poverty found in South america? Jokes, all of those countries have been plagued by civil wars, coups and the like. The only ones who were actually helped by the influence of European were those that were populated by Caucasians, specifically the U.S. Canada, New Zealand, Australia etc. because of the racist tendencies of those imperialistic Europeans. And if you wanna take Imperialism even further you could point to countless examples within Europe in which Europeans desecrated each other in the name of dominating another population. Hitler, Mussolini, Jo Stalin, Hell even Napoleon.

France - Free
Germany - Nazi-free
Iraq - Free
Afghanistan - Free
Caucasus - Soviet-free
Kuwait - Free
Nazi Genocide - Confronted and Stopped
Soviet Totalitarianism - Challenged and Defeated
And many more

Yeah we defended Saddam as well as Iran in order to maintain the balance of power between two evils, so that one doesnt become dominant. We didnt support him because we agreed with his policies or liked his style. 2 small evils pit against each other is better than one giant evil that dominates the middle east.

What about Pinochet and the rest of the south american dictatorships backed by the US?

As for WWII, it's not like the Soviet Union held down and destroyed the best of the Nazi forces or anything.

Haiti?

which was previosly a what? a French colony.

If American power ceases to be, there will be a giant power vacuum. Geopolitics teaches that some other national power will move to fill that void. Can you guarantee that an alternative global power will be as freedom-friendly as the United States?

You do realize that the US isn't really one nation, right?

It's all relative. I mean it would probably be vastly more 'freedom friendly' than Iranian imperialism for instance, and probably more friendly than Russian and Chinese imperialism.

Friendly is relative no? And really, it's not a very good argument, just because the US might not be as bad doesn't mean US imperialism is good.

I understand and thats a good point. But if American "imperialism" is so evil, why do we give people we conquer freedom, democracy, and investment, while every other empire spread totalitarianism and killed and raped women and babies and beat the conquered people into submission..

The freedom to get killed, the freedom to work long hours and do a hard job, the freedom to vote for your next corrupt president/prime minister, and other related freedoms.

Not everyone likes democracy by the way, you seem to think that democracy is somehow sacred, somehow the only possible governing system.

US imperialism is based much more on economics, and the things you talk about are not so much parts of imperialism as pillaging, which occurred in the past (essentially the soldier's bonus).

If America is evil, then why havent we kept the conquered nations like France, Germany, Japan? Why havent we enslaved the Iraqi people and stolen all their oil already? If we have immoral and selfish goals, why do we invade nations if were just going to give them back?

If it was in our interests we would stay. But there's no reason to since it costs us a good deal of cash, and we can often accomplish our goals without a large presence.

I understand and thats a good point. But if American "imperialism" is so evil, why do we give people we conquer freedom, democracy, and investment, while every other empire spread totalitarianism and killed and raped women and babies and beat the conquered people into submission..

Oh yes, but just because the US is more "benevolent" than other empires in the way it conducts imperialism doesn't mean that it good. The US wars in the third world tend to lead to large numbers of casualties (both combatants and non-combatants), as well as destabilizing the country indefinitely. Not only that, but the democracies that the US does set up tend to be shams, being run by US- approved candidates.

Not to mention that US imperialism violates the most fundamental right outlined in the Declaration of Independence, the right of people to choose their own form of government. This right supercedes any talk of democracy, freedom, free market, or any other democratic ideal.

Yes, US imperialism sounds good, spreading peace, prosperity, democracy, and freedom to the oppressed peoples of the third world, but the reality is far different.

What about Pinochet and the rest of the south american dictatorships backed by the US?

As for WWII, it's not like the Soviet Union held down and destroyed the best of the Nazi forces or anything.

And its not like that without the entrance of the U.S. russia would have been conquered by the germans or anything. :rolleyes:

France–Free
Iraq–Free
Afghanistan–Free
Kuwait–Free
As Popeye would say: “Ug ug ug ug ug ug”.

Care to share your rather warped conception of ‘freedom’?

Germany–Nazi-free
Caucasus–Soviet-free
Nazi Genocide–Confronted and Stopped
I think you’ll find there were other soldiers fighting other than US troops.

You need to watch U-571 less.

Soviet Totalitarianism–Challenged and Defeated
Not by the US. Internal political strife, a poor economic system and an angry populace brought down the USSR. The US sat by, postured, watched and cheered, then the same men who today declare a War Against Terrorism, declared they had won a War Against Communism.

what sort of good things came out of european imperialism? thats incredibly arrogant btw.
The building of a lot of the infrastructure that still remains today in quite a large amount of our colonial territories - for example, a lot of the railways in India and Uganda which lasted up until the 1980s on certain routes in India were built by subcontractors of the East India Company.

We also stopped a whole load of extremely old-fashioned and quite frankly offensive beliefs from going on any more - for example Suttee, which you'll have trouble defending, and we put a lot of investment into those countries in the years immediately after their independance.

And it's not really arrogant, by the way.

which was previosly a what? a French colony.

I'm not inclined to defend European imperialism, either.

France - Free
Yes...
Germany - Nazi-free
Thank you, the USSR for that one.
Iraq - Free
Erm, no.
Afghanistan - Free
Erm, no.
Caucasus - Soviet-free
Aye, now plagued by problems like in South Ossetia and Dagistan. Wahey, and such.
Kuwait - Free
Who gives a shit?
Nazi Genocide - Confronted and Stopped
By the USSR more than anyone else.
Soviet Totalitarianism - Challenged and Defeated
Shot themselves in the foot more than anything else.

France - Free
Germany - Nazi-free
Iraq - Free
Afghanistan - Free
Caucasus - Soviet-free
Kuwait - Free
Nazi Genocide - Confronted and Stopped
Soviet Totalitarianism - Challenged and Defeated
And many more

Yeah we defended Saddam as well as Iran in order to maintain the balance of power between two evils, so that one doesnt become dominant. We didnt support him because we agreed with his policies or liked his style. 2 small evils pit against each other is better than one giant evil that dominates the middle east.

The US did not win World War Two singlehadedly, nor was it an example of US imperialism. Iraq is not free by any measure. Nor is Afghanistan. The fall of the Soviet Union was not caused by US imperialism either.

You fail. Try again.

And its not like that without the entrance of the U.S. russia would have been conquered by the germans or anything. :rolleyes:
Without straying too far into the Land Of Hypotheticals, I seriously doubt it would have been conquered.

I don’t think Hitler played enough Risk as a boy.

I dont believe for a second that the freest nation on Earth

Hahahahaha....

sets out kill woman and babies

No, no, we just do that incidentally.

to steal all their resources

To broadly advance US imperial objectives, which include control over resources? Yes.

The building of a lot of the infrastructure that still remains today in quite a large amount of our colonial territories - for example, a lot of the railways in India and Uganda which lasted up until the 1980s on certain routes in India were built by subcontractors of the East India Company.

We also stopped a whole load of extremely old-fashioned and quite frankly offensive beliefs from going on any more - for example Suttee, which you'll have trouble defending, and we put a lot of investment into those countries in the years immediately after their independance.

And it's not really arrogant, by the way.

yes it is because the U.S. has in fact helped out plenty of countries with its interference. For everyone of those examples you could easily point to the fact that India should never have been united into one country in the first place. Again the offensive belief that India was not a civilized nation without the influence of the so called great Europeans. honestly that is arrogance at its worst. You wanna talk about UGanda? the "african cake" mentality messed up that country and countless others because the Europeans divided Africa in terms of what they could gain, putting up borders for their own interests leading to thousands of civil wars, brutal genocides, and overall complete havoc within the countries. And what a great example, Uganda. hahahahaha.

Without straying too far into the Land Of Hypotheticals, I seriously doubt it would have been conquered.

I don’t think Hitler played enough Risk as a boy.

well again without straying into the land of hypotheticals again, The germans were right at moscow.

Nominally, we haven't, but we have de facto. Hence all of the various multinational organizations and arrangements such as NATO, Bretton Woods, the IMF, WTO etc. that serve as a political cartel to protect a statist financial and industrial elite from nations that, drawing a page from the Prisoner's Dilemma, would 'compete' by liberalizing.



We have.



I rather dislike your use of the abstract collective. 'We' are not the Federal government, even if we do the ceremony of perforating a piece of paper annually. They are their own particular interest with their own ends, and whatever they do does not reflect poorly on us.

I'm sorry, its just that I have this thing where I like my own country and see myself in the same boat as those voted into power. I'm also not blinded by Bush-hatred and i dont get off by bashing America. I dont believe for a second that the freest nation on Earth sets out kill woman and babies to steal all their resources just so that a few abstract elitists can buy 3 Ferraris.

And its not like that without the entrance of the U.S. russia would have been conquered by the germans or anything. :rolleyes:
No, not at all.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!! You wanna say that with countries such as Vietnam?
Thanks the Japs, then the French, then you Yanks, then the USSR, then the Chinese for that one.
such as Cambodia?
Nothing to do with European imperialism, to be quite honest. You bombed it, it went communist, and the Kmher Rouge was backed up in the UN by the US because they were ethnically cleansing the Vietnamese as much as anything else.
such as all of Africa? Such as the poverty found in South america? Jokes, all of those countries have been plagued by civil wars, coups and the like.
Thank you US and USSR imperialism of the 1960s to 1991 for that particular farce.
The only ones who were actually helped by the influence of European were those that were populated by Caucasians, specifically the U.S. Canada, New Zealand, Australia etc. because of the racist tendencies of those imperialistic Europeans.
The US wasn't populated by Caucasians, you deployed the Smallpox Blanket trick on them, New Zealand and Australia were taken in extremely long wars against the local ethnic population, and Canada is erm Canadalicious, which is why it wasn't so bad.
And if you wanna take Imperialism even further you could point to countless examples within Europe in which Europeans desecrated each other in the name of dominating another population. Hitler, Mussolini, Jo Stalin, Hell even Napoleon.
Err what?

Or the board game "The Massive Slaughter of Napolean's Army at the Hands of an Unrelenting Russian Winter".
The annihilation of his army wasn't due to the Russian Winter so much as the complete lack of discipline in his forces after Moscow, which meant that Russian light horse, esp. the Cossacks, could wipe out stragglers without anyone else knowing for quite a while, meaning that effecting any kind of thought-out defence was basically impossible.

So there we go on that one.

So besides myself, the general consensus is that on the whole America is generally bad and has never done any good for any human being on Earth.

I don't take such a black a white view. Of course America do a lot of good, they make up the bulk of foreign aid to poor nations for example, and have done a lot of good rescue missions and other such stuff with the UN. However, this is not imperialism, the thread is about American imperialism, not just America.

So besides myself, the general consensus is that on the whole America is generally bad and has never done any good for any human being on Earth.
No, the general consensus is that you have a terrible case of hyperbole.

Or the board game “The Massive Slaughter of Napolean’s Army at the Hands of an Unrelenting Russian Winter”.
Or the Parcheesi variant, Russia is fuckin BIG.

well again without straying into the land of hypotheticals again, The germans were right at moscow.

Hardly important considering that they got beaten back.

So besides myself, the general consensus is that on the whole America is generally bad and has never done any good for any human being on Earth.

Without straying too far into the Land Of Hypotheticals, I seriously doubt it would have been conquered.

I don’t think Hitler played enough Risk as a boy.

Or the board game "The Massive Slaughter of Napolean's Army at the Hands of an Unrelenting Russian Winter".

So besides myself, the general consensus is that on the whole America is generally bad and has never done any good for any human being on Earth.

Oh, poor United States. So oppressed.

The germans were right at moscow.
Then I’d ask you to update your geography knowledge, and take a look at the map of the USSR.

Moscow =/= USSR.

So besides myself, the general consensus is that on the whole America is generally bad and has never done any good for any human being on Earth.

Really the topic is to some extent to try and hate on Americans. I mean, if it was, "Imperialism: Good or Bad" it could have the exact same wording just with all the other countries that have done it as well. Every nation acts in their own best interests. So I don't think there are any out there that are just fantastic and only interested in helping. Individual volunteers and NGOs are another thing though.

So besides myself, the general consensus is that on the whole America is generally bad and has never done any good for any human being on Earth.

I suggest you learn some english. The consensus is that US imperialism is a bad thing, not that the US is the great satan.

So besides myself, the general consensus is that on the whole America is generally bad and has never done any good for any human being on Earth.

No, I happen to like the United States (as well as reside within it). I just dislike/disagree with the foreign policy and the reigning administration, which has done quite a bit to screw up the country.

So besides myself, the general consensus is that on the whole America is generally bad and has never done any good for any human being on Earth.

...the thread is about American imperialism, not just America.

Free World Elites, please note the difference. USians are not to blame for their government's foreign policy.

No, I happen to like the United States (as well as reside within it). I just disagree with the foreign policy and the reigning administration.

But you guys throw around words like "imperialism" and attach it to the word American, while expressing your hatred for the "reigning" administration, wearing it like a badge of honor on your chest. Youre so invested in the belief that America and/or Bush is evil, that you can't even be open minded to the idea that America has done a vast amount of good for the world, WAY more good than bad.

In other news, it seems like the general consensus supports Canadian Imperialism, and rule by way of maple syrup.

I would like to nominate myself as new Dictator-in-chief and Imperialistic Canadian Bastard.

But you guys throw around words like "imperialism" and attach it to the word American, while expressing your hatred for the "reigning" administration, wearing it like a badge of honor on your chest. Youre so invested in the belief that America and/or Bush is evil, that you can't even be open minded to the idea that America has done a vast amount of good for the world, WAY more good than bad.

Are we reading the same thread?

I'm sorry, its just that I have this thing where I like my own country and see myself in the same boat as those voted into power.

I like my own country, too. But I sure as hell don't see how a couple hundred swindlers are equivalent to the entire country. Like anyone else, they have their own self-interest, and they take advantage of the privileges given them.

I'm also not blinded by Bush-hatred and i dont get off by bashing America.

I really couldn't care less about Bush or the Republicans; they are just as bad as the other side. Virtually all politicians are rotten, but I don't see their characteristics as swindlers as being representative of the whole. They are, again, their own particular interest separate from the other political interests of the country.

I dont believe for a second that the freest nation on Earth sets out kill woman and babies to steal all their resources just so that a few abstract elitists can buy 3 Ferraris.

Again with the abstract collectives. The freest nation on Earth does not set out to do this; the individuals in the Federal government does. And the elitists are hardly abstract; one need look no further than Halliburton to see them in action.

yes it is because the U.S. has in fact helped out plenty of countries with its interference.
Aye, such as Haiti and Liberia, maybe Chile, aye?
For everyone of those examples you could easily point to the fact that India should never have been united into one country in the first place. Again the offensive belief that India was not a civilized nation without the influence of the so called great Europeans.
Pardon?

When did I say that it wasn't civilised without the so-called great Europeans?

We built literally tens of thousands of miles of railway track there, I think that counts for something, to be quite honest.
honestly that is arrogance at its worst.
As opposed to the US government's collosal hubris about how great Iraq is now, aye?

"Woohoo, they have freedom!"
"Yes, now if I only could get running water like I used to be able to..."
"BUT FREEEEDOM!"
"Aye, food for my children would be good also, the police took mine off me the last time I went to the shops.
You wanna talk about UGanda?
Go for it.
the "african cake" mentality messed up that country and countless others because the Europeans divided Africa in terms of what they could gain, putting up borders for their own interests leading to thousands of civil wars, brutal genocides, and overall complete havoc within the countries. And what a great example, Uganda. hahahahaha.
And thank you the US and the USSR for reviving this in the 1960s and 1970s. Idi Amin was undoubtedly one of the worst dictators of the 20th Century, but he was backed up by the US because at least he wasn't that dirty commie Obote.

Disgraceful, to be quite honest. For a country that preaches about the horrors of imperialism, you've had more than your fair share.

I would like to disagree with the americans using the diseased blanket trick, I believe that was the british. To continue the thought, the diseases were brought by the british, french, spanish, and portuges(probably spelled wrong). Please note the trans-atlantic slave trade was also started by european countries, since the natives that they turned into slaves got wiped out. Also britain turned china into a big opium den in the name of profit. Can't say the usa is doing any wose then europe has in the past.

But you guys throw around words like "imperialism" and attach it to the word American
Actually, you're the one who did that.

... you can't even be open minded to the idea that America has done a vast amount of good for the world, WAY more good than bad.
Doing volunteer work and giving money to charities does not absolve a man from his responsibilities if he commits murder. He doesn't get the "But I only murdered him ONCE, and I do much more good deeds than bad ones!" defense.

Likewise, good deeds past or present does not absolve the US government from its responsibility in its imperialistic fuckups. Which, by the way, tend to be of monumental proportions.

In other words: we don't care what good things you do, and won't care about them, until you stop behaving like an ass in your imperialistic views. When you stop pursuing your own interests no matter the cost to others, and you keep doing good things, then we'll start talking about how you're the best thing since sliced bread.

Not before.

Can't say the usa is doing any wose then europe has in the past.

Someone who's killed less people than Ted Bundy doesn't get to use that as a defense, y'know.

But you guys throw around words like "imperialism" and attach it to the word American, while expressing your hatred for the "reigning" administration, wearing it like a badge of honor on your chest. Youre so invested in the belief that America and/or Bush is evil, that you can't even be open minded to the idea that America has done a vast amount of good for the world, WAY more good than bad.

$9 trillion in debt, a war that has done absolutely no good for anyone, a completely annihilated international reputation, and a weakening economy seems more than a good enough reason to dislike the man. I'm not "invested" in Bush's evil nature, he's just done a world of harm to the US and various other countries.

Just so you know, growing up, I was a rather ferocious neocon, so disliking Bush isn't so much a badge of honor as it is a conclusion reached after years of research. I recommend you start reading BBC, that will give you a better idea of what's actually going on. It also helps not to think of the world in such idealistic terms and doing research to help determine what the best political stance is.

Do you think the American form of "imperialism", as some have come to call it, is a positive force in the world?

No.

You should have made a poll.

Do you think the American form of "imperialism", as some have come to call it, is a positive force in the world?

Imperialism is always ethically abominable, whether practiced by your favorite nation-state or otherwise.

In some cases American imperialism has been a force for good, even if only for the American people. More often, however, we seem to fuck up, or pursue our own interests in such a manner that we defeat ourselves. The United States exports freedom and democracy overseas so vigorously that they're sometimes at a premium back home.

And its not like that without the entrance of the U.S. russia would have been conquered by the germans or anything. :rolleyes:
Are you familiar with the history of World War II at all, in any depth?

I'm not either, but I have heard the name Stalingrad, for just one.

So besides myself, the general consensus is that on the whole America is generally bad and has never done any good for any human being on Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies -- A great resource for up-and-coming debaters. I encourage you to familiarise yourself with all of them, and use 'em as often as you like. (I've not seen any Generalite use more than about five or six per post, so you might even set a record.)

Imperialism is always ethically abominable, whether practiced by your favorite nation-state or otherwise.

Maybe if we stopped just slapping the word "imperialism" down next to the word "American" in order to just attach an evil connotation with the U.S., we could open up our minds and realize that maybe the U.S. isnt as evil as it seems. I have no respect for people who just follow the crowd and narrow their minds into only believing the United States is evil and imperialist (just another word for bad i guess, regardless of moral relativity). It might feel good to bash who evers on top just cuz its the cool thing to do, but if Bush was as fascist as you claim and feel, then would you even be able to dissent right now? Or better yet, if America had hid itself in submission like everyone wants, would there be less people still bowing down to kings, dictators, fascists, totalitarian marxists, and communist parties - or more?

Do you think the American form of "imperialism", as some have come to call it, is a positive force in the world?

As and idea? Fantastic, and wonderful.

As the reality you try to pettle it as: Not, there is no American Imperialism, America is eiterh one of two continents, or a Democratic Republic. There is no absolute executive power, nor expansionist policy, both of which are needed for Imperialism.

Maybe if we stopped just slapping the word "imperialism" down next to the word "American" in order to just attach an evil connotation with the U.S., we could open up our minds and realize that maybe the U.S. isnt as evil as it seems. I have no respect for people who just follow the crowd and narrow their minds into only believing the United States is evil and imperialist (just another word for bad i guess, regardless of moral relativity). It might feel good to bash who evers on top just cuz its the cool thing to do, but if Bush was as fascist as you claim and feel, then would you even be able to dissent right now? Or better yet, if America had hid itself in submission, would there be less people still be bowing down to kings, dictators, fascists, totalitarian marxists, and communist parties?
So, basically, what you're saying is that you haven't read a single word posted on this thread seriously, and only made this in order to try to be an apologist for everything the US government has ever done, no matter how horribly damageable to the rest of the world?

You haven't begun to understand that not a single word here has been uttered in that so-called "America-bashing", but rather honest criticism of questionable actions and strategies applied by people in power to further advance their own goals?

You want us to thank you for the great service that the US of A have done to us by getting rid of dictators, fascists, totalitarians and communists, while the US government has only done so when it furthered its own interest, and installed such corrupt, bloody regimes whenever it suited it more?

You actually expect us to thank you for that, on the premise that it could have been even worse if someone else had messed with the world ?

Here comes the special Skaladora parrallel:

"Just because you use lube doesn't make it any less of a rape, even if it is indeed slightly less uncomfortable than being raped by someone who doesn't lube up first."

'nuff said.

Maybe if we stopped just slapping the word "imperialism" down next to the word "American" in order to just attach an evil connotation with the U.S., we could open up our minds and realize that maybe the U.S. isnt as evil as it seems. I have no respect for people who just follow the crowd and narrow their minds into only believing the United States is evil and imperialist (just another word for bad i guess, regardless of moral relativity). It might feel good to bash who evers on top just cuz its the cool thing to do, but if Bush was as fascist as you claim and feel, then would you even be able to dissent right now? Or better yet, if America had hid itself in submission like everyone wants, would there be less people still bowing down to kings, dictators, fascists, totalitarian marxists, and communist parties - or more?

I agree, people are being too willing to slap innapropriate labels onto things these days.

There is no real modern equivalent of Fascism, Fascism was an ideal of the 1920's and '30's, and has been effectively lost.

Imperialism has seen occasional, and disjointed use since after WWi, but not in America.

Here comes the special Skaladora parrallel:

"Just because you use lube doesn't make it any less of a rape, even if it is indeed slightly less uncomfortable than being raped by someone who doesn't lube up first."

'nuff said.

The best part is that there is no evidence that it would have been more uncomfortable if someone else had done the raping. We have only the rapists's word for it.

The best part is that there is no evidence that it would have been more uncomfortable if someone else had done the raping. We have only the rapists's word for it.

I think the second best part of it is it's inappropriate use as an analogy! That part rocked... wiat, no it didn't.

The best part is that there is no evidence that it would have been more uncomfortable if someone else had done the raping. We have only the rapists's word for it.

Precisely.

Oh, well, there's only one way to find out.

*Grinds teeth, closes eyes, and waits for what's coming*

:rolleyes:

Not in the least. America has lost its conservative roots, taking on liberal policies. Look where they've taken us - we're the most hated country in the world, next to Israel.

Maybe if we stopped just slapping the word "imperialism" down next to the word "American" in order to just attach an evil connotation with the U.S., we could open up our minds and realize that maybe the U.S. isnt as evil as it seems.

If the shoe fits...

The conquest of foreign countries in the pursuit of national interest is imperialism. To deny that the United States has had a history of imperialistic adventures requires a willful act of ignorance. I happen to live in America, buddy, and I have opposed such actions by my government from the very moment I have been conscious of them. Would you deny me that right, since I don't bow down and kiss the feet of your graven idol?

I have no respect for people who just follow the crowd and narrow their minds into only believing the United States is evil and imperialist (just another word for bad i guess, regardless of moral relativity).

Well, that's your prerogtative. But do not pretend to understand my motivations for believing as I do. I must stress that the actions of the US government are currently corrupt and immoral, bordering on quasi-fascistic at times.

But the blind and narrow-minded will always be the first to reproach their opponents for being "narrow-minded." In reality, I am only "narrow-minded" because my point-of-view is not sufficiently broad as to include contemplating the corrupt, immoral, and blatantly misanthropic notions that are the prevailing wisdom.

It might feel good to bash who evers on top just cuz its the cool thing to do, but if Bush was as fascist as you claim and feel, then would you even be able to dissent right now? Or better yet, if America had hid itself in submission, would there be less people still bowing down to kings, dictators, fascists, totalitarian marxists, and communist parties - or more?

There has not been a single case in American history where the United States has supported the cause of freedom in international politics. In the name of "freedom," America has murdered millions of native americans and stolen their land, conquered and repressed large parts of Mexico, sent thousands of her sons to die to protect the interests of massive corporations and American puppet states.

WWII was fought not for freedom, but to protect the interests of American capital. It was won not by the US alone. The greatest brunt of the war was carried by the Soviet Union, who was ultimately responsible for ending Nazi Germany. In Korea, the US supported a fascist dictator over the the Korean people's plea for democracy. In Vietnam, again America supported a tyrant against his own people. Again and again throughout South America, the US toppled governments and propped up dictators to protect the interests of American capital. Chile, El Salvador and Nicaragua: those names ring a bell?

The US enthusiastically supports the Saudi Arabian dictatorship, as well as the Egyptian dictatorship. It sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, knowing full well that he would enthusiastically use them against Iran and the Kurds.

I speak out against such actions because I will not tolerate any group that says it stands for freedom, and then acts in such a way as to destroy freedom for millions, if not billions of people around the world. If you truly believe in freedom, you would oppose such actions as well.

So, basically, what you're saying is that you haven't read a single word posted on this thread seriously, and only made this in order to try to be an apologist for everything the US government has ever done, no matter how horribly damageable to the rest of the world?

You haven't begun to understand that not a single word here has been uttered in that so-called "America-bashing", but rather honest criticism of questionable actions and strategies applied by people in power to further advance their own goals?

You want us to thank you for the great service that the US of A have done to us by getting rid of dictators, fascists, totalitarians and communists, while the US government has only done so when it furthered its own interest, and installed such corrupt, bloody regimes whenever it suited it more?

You actually expect us to thank you for that, on the premise that it could have been even worse if someone else had messed with the world ?

Here comes the special Skaladora parrallel:

"Just because you use lube doesn't make it any less of a rape, even if it is indeed slightly less uncomfortable than being raped by someone who doesn't lube up first."

'nuff said.

I'm just coming from a position where, yes, I recognize and will easily admit to atrocities that have been committed by Americans, and that they should be dealt with honestly. But in the bigger picture, the U.S. is generally a noble nation, and with mistakes made and lessons learned, America has done a whole lot of good for the world. American foreign policy is not to rape and pillage. Things like liberating Iraq are noble causes that, yes, do overlap with American interests. Yet, its important to realize that we respect the people there and dont treat the "conquered" peoples at all like an imperialist from the past would. Mistakes and atrocities of the past dont negate all the positive strides weve made. Narrowing your view of America to merely a rapist is insulting to Americans who have spilled their blood for noble causes.

I'm just coming from a position where, yes, I recognize and will easily admit to atrocities that have been committed by Americans, and that they should be dealt with honestly. But in the bigger picture, the U.S. is generally a noble nation, and with mistakes made and lessons learned, America has done a whole lot of good for the world.

Good that we will recognize when it is being done for noble motives, not when it happens to serve your national interests.


American foreign policy is not to rape and pillage. Things like liberating Iraq are noble causes that, yes, do overlap with American interests.

Liberating Iraq had nothing noble about it. Iraq is not liberated, unless you count the freedom to have a foreign nation come in, depose your dictator, and make things even worse by causing a civil war and destabilizing the whole region as "liberation".


Yet, its important to realize that we respect the people there and dont treat the "conquered" peoples at all like an imperialist from the past would. Mistakes and atrocities of the past dont negate all the positive strides weve made.

Go take a look at those youtube videos of how US troops behave in Iraq, and then we'll talk. Especially the ones about the tank drivers listening to "The roof is on fire" while enthusiastically bombing civilian buildings.


Narrowing your view of America to merely a rapist is insulting to Americans who have spilled their blood for noble causes.
Simple emotional appeal by mentioning dead soldiers, those of which have died in Iraq actually having spilled their blood because of the machinations of a few greedy men who sent them to wage a useless war in their place, by the way.

The rapist metaphor was a wink to the fact that America is currently fucking up a good portion of the world(Middle East) up the ass. There are ample precedents in literature where imperialism is described by this imagery; we speak of "raping the land" or "abusing a nation" or its resources.

I know youre so wrapped up and invested in an anti-American ideology, that I'll never be able to change your mind. You gather up every single atrocity, and spin things like those youtube videos into something that helps you feed your hatred for the U.S. If throwing water bottles off humvees to running kids and singing a song is your idea of things worse than Islamic totalitarianism and socialist dictatorships, then that proves youre just looking for anything to bash America with. The U.S. does not invade to commit atrocities against civilians - they go so far as to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible, please dont kid yourself. Your hate is distorting your perception and its hard for me to argue with an ideologue. Im gonna go enjoy my freedom now and not feel guilty to be an American. Hopefully we can free more people someday without being villified for it. Would we even want to?

I know youre so wrapped up and invested in an anti-American ideology, that I'll never be able to change your mind. You gather up every single atrocity, and spin things like those youtube videos into something that helps you feed your hatred for the U.S. If throwing water bottles off humvees to running kids and singing a song is your idea of things worse than Islamic totalitarianism and socialist dictatorships, then that proves youre just looking for anything to bash America with. The U.S. does not invade to commit atrocities against civilians - they go so far as to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible, please dont kid yourself. Your hate is distorting your perception and its hard for me to argue with an ideologue. Im gonna go enjoy my freedom now and not feel guilty to be an American. Hopefully we can free more people someday without being villified for it. Would we even want to?

A socialist dictatorship is much worse than a military one, amirite?

Yes... unless you think the U.S. military is worse than Saddam. And if you do, then holy shit, youre messed up in the head.

Would we even want to?
Please, for the love of God, from now on don't bother saving us from the evil men who are out to get us.

You're so wrapped up in delusions and martyr complexes it's not even funny.

Yes... unless you think the U.S. military is worse than Saddam. And if you do, then holy shit, youre messed up in the head.

I was thinking along the lines of Pinochet and all his south american army buddies you guys propped up.

I Im gonna go enjoy my freedom now and not feel guilty to be an American. Hopefully we can free more people someday without being villified for it. Would we even want to?

wow that was pretentious

you still operate around the idea that the US is required to ward off wrongdoing,
that the US is obligated to save the world from its self
im sorry but the people of the world purely want to absolve themselves
the dead man cares little about his right to vote

I know youre so wrapped up and invested in an anti-American ideology, that I'll never be able to change your mind. You gather up every single atrocity, and spin things like those youtube videos into something that helps you feed your hatred for the U.S. If throwing water bottles off humvees to running kids and singing a song is your idea of things worse than Islamic totalitarianism and socialist dictatorships, then that proves youre just looking for anything to bash America with. The U.S. does not invade to commit atrocities against civilians - they go so far as to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible, please dont kid yourself. Your hate is distorting your perception and its hard for me to argue with an ideologue. Im gonna go enjoy my freedom now and not feel guilty to be an American. Hopefully we can free more people someday without being villified for it. Would we even want to?

Read. Just read. It helps to know what's actually going on, as opposed to simply knowing the rhetoric spouted off on CNN. http://www.bbc.co.uk/

That's the homework I'm giving you. Read it for a week or two.

Arite you guys are givin me grey hairs you win. Good luck with that whole America bashing thing, maybe itll get you somewhere someday or at least some cocktail credibility chicks dig it n stuff. Im gonna go drink the blood of dead babies now because its the American thing to do - at least we can agree on that!! hahajkomgwtf

A socialist dictatorship is much worse than a military one, amirite?

Many would say that 'socialist dictatorship' is a contradiction.

Arite you guys are givin me grey hairs you win. Good luck with that whole America bashing thing, maybe itll get you somewhere someday or at least some cocktail credibility chicks dig it n stuff. Im gonna go drink the blood of dead babies now because its the American thing to do - at least we can agree on that!! hahajkomgwtf

Get real, grow some maturity, and go inform yourself on the subject instead of victimizing yourself or your country about things nobody have said.

Yelling about America-bashing because people honestly criticize with well-documented examples and evidence the regime under you live does not equal demonizing a whole population.

Many would say that 'socialist dictatorship' is a contradiction.

Those people are either dumbasses, or socialists in denial, because Hitler was a socialist dictator and people with a mind now that.

Yes... unless you think the U.S. military is worse than Saddam. And if you do, then holy shit, youre messed up in the head.

Haha messed up in the head? How many civilians did the Americans kill in Iraq and how many civilians did Saddam kill in Iraq?

Oh, and please don't tell me these civilians were 'collateral for freedom.' or something like that. Why didn't Saddam just say those Kurds were 'collateral for freedom' and feel better about himself? (Maybe he did... maybe he didn't. Word manipulation tends to be very convenient.)

Arite you guys are givin me grey hairs you win. Good luck with that whole America bashing thing, maybe itll get you somewhere someday or at least some cocktail credibility chicks dig it n stuff. Im gonna go drink the blood of dead babies now because its the American thing to do - at least we can agree on that!! hahajkomgwtf

Nobody said anything remotely like that about you. But I'm actually dead serious on this one and I'll just keep spamming you until you cave in. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ - the most unbiased, informative news station I know of. It's a start.

Nobody said anything remotely like that about you. But I'm actually dead serious on this one and I'll just keep spamming you until you cave in. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ - the most unbiased, informative news station I know of. It's a start.

lol okay, thank you for the honest suggestion

Those people are either dumbasses, or socialists in denial, because Hitler was a socialist dictator and people with a mind now that.

Just because a party is called National Socialist, doesn't make them socialists. Hitler, I can firmly say, was not a socialist, but true he was more left then right wing with his economy.

Those people are either dumbasses, or socialists in denial, because Hitler was a socialist dictator and people with a mind now that.

Just an FYI, Hitler's party was dubbed "National Socialist" by opposition parties who were seeking to slander the party. Much in the same way that the Elephant and the Donkey, symbols for the Republican and Democratic parties respectively, began as political insults in cartoons.

-snip multiple posts-

You know, you remind me an awful lot of somebody who very mysteriously stopped posting on this forum a few days ago because they were utterly discredited in half a dozen respects.

Not saying you're a new incarnation or anything of that poster, more along the lines of "get new speechwriters."

It is a vastly negative force.

Hitler wanted to distribute the means of production to the workers? News to me...didnt he ban labor unions?

Maybe if we stopped just slapping the word "imperialism" down next to the word "American" in order to just attach an evil connotation with the U.S., we could open up our minds and realize that maybe the U.S. isnt as evil as it seems.

Isn't the title of this thread "American Imperialism: Good or Bad?"?. Last time I checked I thought we were giving our opinions on American Imperialism. So what , you have found out that a lot people have found a lot of bad things with American Imperialism so your starting to get angry with people who are answering your question? This is about debate and the only thing I see you doing is whining about how people don;t share your views.

Just an FYI, Hitler's party was dubbed "National Socialist" by opposition parties who were seeking to slander the party. Much in the same way that the Elephant and the Donkey, symbols for the Republican and Democratic parties respectively, began as political insults in cartoons.

Actually, (and no offense or anything), it was quite the opposite, Hitler wanted to ride as many fences as possible. After WWI, and the French atrocity that we call a 'treaty' the Germans wanted Nationalism, Socialism, under the name of Communism was also fairly popular as a movement at the time. Throw in some patriotic feelings "German", and express the Bismarkian ideal of good work ethic (Iron and Blood, and all that good stuff), and mention that it is a political party (referred to as "Party") and you got yourself an amalgamation of concepts that can stretch to most any belief system, the NSDAP (National-Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeits Partei, or National-Socialist German Workers Party)... now all we need is a scape goat... hmm, who would R. Goebbels suggest... lets ask him (it turned out to be the Jews).

I really am not trying to seem condescending, it is just my ridiculous manner of speaking that is bleeding through, if you feel offended I apologize, and assure you it was not the attempt, I jsut wanted the record set straight that Hitler was playing pretty much ever political view as best he could, apparently poll-rigging wasn't enough. :p

Actually, (and no offense or anything), it was quite the opposite, Hitler wanted to ride as many fences as possible. After WWI, and the French atrocity that we call a 'treaty' the Germans wanted Nationalism, Socialism, under the name of Communism was also fairly popular as a movement at the time.
That makes sense. Actually, it was kind of socialist, in that they wanted the government to help all good Germans. ("Good" here meaning white, not Jewish, not foreign, etc.) And it was nationalist in...well, everything else.

I really am not trying to seem condescending, it is just my ridiculous manner of speaking that is bleeding through, if you feel offended I apologize, and assure you it was not the attempt
You didn't seem condescending. No worries.

Can you provide an example of US imperialism helping anyone who wasn't USian?


The War against Nazism. The Berlin Airlift. The North/South Korean DMZ. Not to mention that America gives 60% of all world aid including thousands of tons of corn given to african villagers who would otherwise starve.

I'm not a fan of sticking our noses in other nation's sovereignties or fucking with The Middle East. America needs to mind its own business more often. But realistically, America has done its share of good and bad things.

Actually, (and no offense or anything), it was quite the opposite, Hitler wanted to ride as many fences as possible. After WWI, and the French atrocity that we call a 'treaty' the Germans wanted Nationalism, Socialism, under the name of Communism was also fairly popular as a movement at the time. Throw in some patriotic feelings "German", and express the Bismarkian ideal of good work ethic (Iron and Blood, and all that good stuff), and mention that it is a political party (referred to as "Party") and you got yourself an amalgamation of concepts that can stretch to most any belief system, the NSDAP (National-Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeits Partei, or National-Socialist German Workers Party)... now all we need is a scape goat... hmm, who would R. Goebbels suggest... lets ask him (it turned out to be the Jews).

I really am not trying to seem condescending, it is just my ridiculous manner of speaking that is bleeding through, if you feel offended I apologize, and assure you it was not the attempt, I jsut wanted the record set straight that Hitler was playing pretty much ever political view as best he could, apparently poll-rigging wasn't enough. :p

Uh, hitler didn't really ride the fence when it came to Jews and homosexuals. 8 million, that is pretty evil.

Imperialism is always bad, no matter who does it.

Would you trade American supremacy for German dominance? Perhaps Russia? Or maybe Japanese Imperialism? China?
Nations are artificial constructs anyway.

Hitler wanted to distribute the means of production to the workers? News to me...didnt he ban labor unions?
Yes ignoring the fact that he banned trade unions and abolished all worker power, used communists and any leftists as slave labor etc. The only people who had their property expropriated ironically were Jews and Communists, the capitalist elite benefited from their relationship to the state by Hitler invading neighboring countries and looting their resources, allowing markets that would not have existed under normal times.

Fascism is capitalism in decay, when all the presences and trivialities of class oppression (as seen here in the West in terms of 'rule of law','civil liberties' etc) have been stripped away and all that is left is raw, naked, brutal class exploitation. It's also capitalism at the stage of impotent imperialism, when new markets can only be made by wars for plunder.

The War against Nazism.

War against Nazism? Slightly misleading considering America didn't enter the war until she got attacked herself.

Do you think the American form of "imperialism", as some have come to call it, is a positive force in the world?

in a word; NO!

not unless you consider bludgeoning the rest of the world into 'drinking the orange lemonaide' of collective species suicide through global climate chainge and general environmental breakdown (motivate by the widespread dilusion that even if no one else does, each individual themselves will get something out of it, other then dead), among other things.

the earth will certainly be a peaceful place with none of us here to witness it, but no, that's not quite how i'd prefer to see it get there.

=^^=
.../\...

And its not like that without the entrance of the U.S. russia would have been conquered by the germans or anything. :rolleyes:

The only help given by the US was through the Lend-Lease programme. This can hardly means the US single-handedly saved Russia from Nazi conquest.

The War against Nazism.

It was called World War II. The USA did not win it singlehandedly. The Nazis were the imperialists. Since the USA was defending herself, it was not an example of US imperialism.

The Berlin Airlift.
Are you claiming that Berlin Airlift was a product of US imperialism? No. Sorry. Wrong. The USA never attempted to exert political or eonomic control of Berlin.

The North/South Korean DMZ.

Right. The USSR and the US governments of the time take Korea from the Japanese, split it down the middle without asking the Koreans and set up some puppet governments that have perpetuated a civil war. How many Koreans have died since then, due to this imperialism? And this is a good thing?

Not to mention that America gives 60% of all world aid including thousands of tons of corn given to african villagers who would otherwise starve.

Do you have a source for this? Please provide a source that discriminates between military aid, economic aid, tied aid, and other types of aid. If you include such things as military aid in your foreign aid estimate, you could claim that the US government was sending foreign aid to Saddam Hussein when it supplied him with the gas he used against the Kurds.

I'm not a fan of sticking our noses in other nation's sovereignties or fucking with The Middle East. America needs to mind its own business more often. But realistically, America has done its share of good and bad things.

In terms of foreign policy and imperialism, the US governments have not had a good track record.

Maybe if we stopped just slapping the word "imperialism" down next to the word "American" in order to just attach an evil connotation with the U.S., we could open up our minds and realize that maybe the U.S. isnt as evil as it seems.

Just out of curiosity then, why did you called this thread "American Imperialism"? You started the thread, using that term, now your complaining because other people are discussing imperalism?

Imperialism (The development of foreign trade and exploitation of foreign materials of less powerful countries through the use of economic and military pressures without without assuming the direct political control of the nations affected. <Funk and Wagnalls>) is bad no matter which county is doing it.

America once followed George Washington's Farewell Address as political doctrine. It is a good cure for any imperialistic posture, real or pretended. Some of it is:

...cherish public credit. use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace...

...Observe good faith and justice towards all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all...

...government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject. At other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim...

...Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests...

...The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop...

...It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world...

...I hold the maxim...to public...affairs that honesty is always the best policy.

...(L)et those engagements be observed in their genuine sense...But...it is unwise to extend them...

...Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest...

...diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing...

...that neutrality is the right course has been admitted...

...guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism...

A foreign policy based on the principles of such maxims would certainly make America seem less imperialistic in the minds of those who feel threatened by it.

Am i close or does this seem far off?

Because it's about fucking up the ass half of the world, for the benefit of handful of already-privileged, greedy pigs?

Typically a country's interests is for the good of itself. It's not America's problem to worry about the rest of the world, contrary to popular belief. As a "privileged, greedy pig" I say American Imperialism would generally be good for America. But we don't need to go and conquer everyone and spread ourselves thin. We're already doing it through trade- which is the best form of modern imperialism.

Typically a country's interests is for the good of itself. It's not America's problem to worry about the rest of the world, contrary to popular belief. As a "privileged, greedy pig" I say American Imperialism would generally be good for America. But we don't need to go and conquer everyone and spread ourselves thin. We're already doing it through trade- which is the best form of modern imperialism.

I think the point was that only the already-rich of American society benefit from the imperialism, as opposed to the country on the whole.

Typically a country's interests is for the good of itself. It's not America's problem to worry about the rest of the world, contrary to popular belief. As a "privileged, greedy pig" I say American Imperialism would generally be good for America. But we don't need to go and conquer everyone and spread ourselves thin. We're already doing it through trade- which is the best form of modern imperialism.

I think the moral repugnance of a war for oil should outweigh any benefit it may bring.

Yes. If we Brits/our Commonwealth can't do it anymore, then the Yanks are the obvious second choice :D

Do you think the American form of "imperialism", as some have come to call it, is a positive force in the world?

Wow, imagine if we really were imperialists....

Yes. If we Brits/our Commonwealth can't do it anymore, then the Yanks are the obvious second choice :D

HUZZAH!i mean, DARN TOOTIN!
As for American imperialism, in most cases it causes alot of grief worldwide.
I think they should keep their heads down for a while, and use more diplomatic means of resolving disputes instead of using diplomacy to dely the inevitable war and make the government look as if it cares about the next nation it's about to crush.
Mostly a bad thing, with a couple of good sides being it helps the US economy stay above water.

I think the moral repugnance of a war for oil should outweigh any benefit it may bring.

Who said anything about an oil war? In general, as an American I care for my country over the rest of the world. Tapping into our own supplies would be easier, anyway.

Who said anything about an oil war? In general, as an American I care for my country over the res of the world. Tapping into our own supplies would be easier, anyway.

That's the spirit.

Imperialism (The development of foreign trade and exploitation of foreign materials of less powerful countries through the use of economic and military pressures without without assuming the direct political control of the nations affected. <Funk and Wagnalls>) is bad no matter which county is doing it.

America once followed George Washington's Farewell Address as political doctrine. It is a good cure for any imperialistic posture, real or pretended. Some of it is:

...cherish public credit. use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace...

...Observe good faith and justice towards all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all...

...government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject. At other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim...

...Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests...

...The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop...

...It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world...

...I hold the maxim...to public...affairs that honesty is always the best policy.

...(L)et those engagements be observed in their genuine sense...But...it is unwise to extend them...

...Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest...

...diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing...

...that neutrality is the right course has been admitted...

...guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism...

A foreign policy based on the principles of such maxims would certainly make America seem less imperialistic in the minds of those who feel threatened by it.

Am i close or does this seem far off?

totally, dead on.

Who said anything about an oil war? In general, as an American I care for my country over the rest of the world. Tapping into our own supplies would be easier, anyway.

Well, does that priority mean you'd be willing to wage a war in order to gain oil? The benefit (oil) is for America and the drawback (death) is for some people from the unimportant 'rest of the world' category.

I never said non-Americans weren't important, but American values should come first as portrayed in the choices Washington makes. So if the country needed oil badly enough were it had to take it, which it doesn't at the moment, then yes, I'd support that war.

Nobody said anything remotely like that about you. But I'm actually dead serious on this one and I'll just keep spamming you until you cave in. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ - the most unbiased, informative news station I know of. It's a start.

Because state-run media is oh so much better than private media :rolleyes:

Reverse sarcasm?

BBC > Fox

So...yes.


Pravda < Wall Street Journal

:p

Because state-run media is oh so much better than private media :rolleyes:

Reverse sarcasm?

BBC > Fox

So...yes.

If American power ceases to be, there will be a giant power vacuum. Geopolitics teaches that some other national power will move to fill that void. Can you guarantee that an alternative global power will be as freedom-friendly as the United States?

But that's clearly not the point you made. You asked if we'd prefer German, Russian or Chinese Dominance. The first two were NOT stopped by US imperialism, the third has yet to happen, though it likely might regardless of what the US does about it.

You brought up two past examples and one potential future example (which takeover would be economic, not military). So, just like through the rest of this thread, you've utterly failed to answer anyone's question with anything but right-wing, talk-radio dogma. You've heard so much of it, it's all truth to you now. I pity you. IF American power ceases to be it will be the fault of those Americans who spared no expense bankrupting their nation into eternal debtor status and butting in where it shouldn't have too often and not taking action when it was desperately needed often enough. If there's nothing it it fo us, we offer no help. It's that simple. When there IS something in it for us, we only deal with those leaders we can control, and when we lose control of them, we fire up the war machine and generate more money for the military-industrial complex (Eisenhower's warning ignored, there).

China's not going to fire a shot if it "takes over" -- it won't have to. My nation is out of shape, overextended, overindulged and fixin' to just be over altogether (as we've known it) within a century. The only thing that has hastened that degenration is the very "imperialism" you seem to be trumpeting. Well, that's just fine, but when the dollar sinks even lower and we become the back-office call center for Chinese corporations, I hope you've got some Mandarin or Cantonese in your repertoire.

Pravda < Wall Street Journal

:p

Pravda = Wall Street Journal.

Both are hymn-singing masturbation rags for their respective systems.

Because state-run media is oh so much better than private media :rolleyes:

It's far better than the sensationalist shit published in the US, which is inaccurate, biased, and typically irrelevant.

I know youre so wrapped up and invested in an anti-American ideology, that I'll never be able to change your mind. You gather up every single atrocity, and spin things like those youtube videos into something that helps you feed your hatred for the U.S. If throwing water bottles off humvees to running kids and singing a song is your idea of things worse than Islamic totalitarianism and socialist dictatorships, then that proves youre just looking for anything to bash America with. The U.S. does not invade to commit atrocities against civilians - they go so far as to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible, please dont kid yourself. Your hate is distorting your perception and its hard for me to argue with an ideologue. Im gonna go enjoy my freedom now and not feel guilty to be an American. Hopefully we can free more people someday without being villified for it. Would we even want to?

I would say that you've (indirectly) hit upon exactly why people are so pissed; there are some that would oppose, say, an invasion of Saudi Arabia in order to enfranchise women even if our plan actually would enfranchise Saudi Arabian women for "worthwhile" costs, whatever the electorate pegged that term to be. Most of the modern liberal schools like to think of themselves as heirs of feminist or socialist thought, but in practice they'd prefer anti-imperialism to actual feminism. More classical liberals like myself who would happily fight for human dignity are a distinct minority, most modern liberals consider "fight for human dignity" a Strangelove-styled non sequitur.

But the root of why they are so pissed, and why so many modern liberals are so jaded about this prospect reflects why so many people are so quick to reject your thinking: you propose pace all experience with actual government adventures in imperialism that an invasion of Saudi Arabia could ever be about anything other than raw national interest, something that every liberal including myself carries at best deep reservations about. It is one of the deepest traditions within liberalism that the end does not justify the means, and the means itself must be pure for the end to be pure as well. Imperialism in practice is never pure, and in the end is always, always about dominating others to get what we want. As such, even if we brought heaven on earth to those countries, we'd still be offering a devil's pact for a gilded cage, something that goes against what our country was supposed to be.

It's far better than the sensationalist shit published in the US, which is inaccurate, biased, and typically irrelevant.

Sensationalist? Government news has to be to keep the sheep in line

Biased? State-run agencies are worse than any private outlet

Irrelevant? To what?

I'll trust private citizens more than a bureaucracy any day. Government news agancies are waste of taxes.

And most government published news in Europe and Asia is simply a sounding post for the policies of the day at best.

Well, you're touching on the fact that all sources of information are biased and inaccurate to some degree, which is true. But BBC> any mainstream USian source, not including VOA.

Well, you're touching on the fact that all sources of information are biased and inaccurate to some degree, which is true. But BBC> any mainstream USian source, not including VOA.

I'll admit that BBC is better than most, and that CNN (Clinton's News Network) tends to trumpet Democrat policies ad=nd FOX does the same for the Republicans. But I favour the concept of private publication more than governmental publications. Then again, I don't watch TV for news. I read WSJ, NY Times, The Economist, National Post and Globe and Mail online, as well as other outlets.

Sensationalist? Government news has to be to keep the sheep in line

Biased? State-run agencies are worse than any private outlet

Irrelevant? To what?

I'll trust private citizens more than a bureaucracy any day. Government news agancies are waste of taxes.

You know the BBC is required by law to be free from political and commercial influence, right? Of course it there are occasional slips but generally it's quite reliable..

I would say that you've (indirectly) hit upon exactly why people are so pissed; there are some that would oppose, say, an invasion of Saudi Arabia in order to enfranchise women even if our plan actually would enfranchise Saudi Arabian women for "worthwhile" costs, whatever the electorate pegged that term to be. Most of the modern liberal schools like to think of themselves as heirs of feminist or socialist thought, but in practice they'd prefer anti-imperialism to actual feminism. More classical liberals like myself who would happily fight for human dignity are a distinct minority, most modern liberals consider "fight for human dignity" a Strangelove-styled non sequitur.

But the root of why they are so pissed, and why so many modern liberals are so jaded about this prospect reflects why so many people are so quick to reject your thinking: you propose pace all experience with actual government adventures in imperialism that an invasion of Saudi Arabia could ever be about anything other than raw national interest, something that every liberal including myself carries at best deep reservations about. It is one of the deepest traditions within liberalism that the end does not justify the means, and the means itself must be pure for the end to be pure as well. Imperialism in practice is never pure, and in the end is always, always about dominating others to get what we want. As such, even if we brought heaven on earth to those countries, we'd still be offering a devil's pact for a gilded cage, something that goes against what our country was supposed to be.

Excellently put.

Sensationalist? Government news has to be to keep the sheep in line

Wha? Government news is almost never sensationalist. I can't recall an instance of MacNeil-Lehrer reporting on Anna Nicole Smith. I don't watch it as much as I used to, though, because I fall asleep faster. That said, I'd trust PBS/NPR before I trusted any news agency owned by GE, Viacom, Disney, Fox, Time-Warner or Microsoft.

Biased? State-run agencies are worse than any private outlet

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Try again, and this time, try not making me laugh. State-run agencies in CORRUPT states are definitely untrustworthy. State-run media in nations such as the UK and France and the US are scrupulously aware of bias, and make the best possible attempts to include as many angles to a given story as are feasible. When's the last time you saw the CBS Evening News run comments from viewers? Every week, NPR owns up to whatever letters catch them in errors or bias, once on Morning Edition and again on All Things Considered

Irrelevant? To what?

Anything that isn't related to the latest celebrity gas-passing.

I'll trust private citizens more than a bureaucracy any day. Government news agancies are waste of taxes.

Well, that's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. Myself, I'd rather not hear news about Enron from GE, but that's just me.

I'll admit that BBC is better than most, and that CNN (Clinton's News Network) tends to trumpet Democrat policies ad=nd FOX does the same for the Republicans. But I favour the concept of private publication more than governmental publications. Then again, I don't watch TV for news. I read WSJ, NY Times, The Economist, National Post and Globe and Mail online, as well as other outlets.

Fair enough -- but why must we now "shop" for our news? It used to be we chose based on the anchor/reader (TV/radio), but now we have to choose between the relative "truthiness" of the entire network's news agency. That's abhorrent, free market be damned.

Fair enough -- but why must we now "shop" for our news? It used to be we chose based on the anchor/reader (TV/radio), but now we have to choose between the realtive "truthiness" of the entire network's news agency. That's abhorrent, free market be damned.

I'll agree with you here, capitalism has no place in news agencies. After all, they're trying to sell you the "best" news, i.e. the news that will give them the biggest profit, not the most accurate or relevant news.

I never said non-Americans weren't important, but American values should come first as portrayed in the choices Washington makes. So if the country needed oil badly enough were it had to take it, which it doesn't at the moment, then yes, I'd support that war.

I assume anti-Americanism doesn't surprise you?

I assume anti-Americanism doesn't surprise you?

Yes it does. They should want to give us their oil. We do represent FREEDOM, after all. I'm being sarcastic

American values: Imperialism, economic exploitation, militarism, racism, savage capitalism, class privilege etc.

Because we all know that any of this talk actually matters.

I'm just a guy going to work, earning a paycheck, paying my mortgage and various utility bills. Do you think that I actually have any power to change what the US government sets its mind to do? I didn't have a say in what brushfire war my government stepped into, and any letters I wrote to any politician are basically ignored. My vote means nothing anymore since the politicians are all alike, just different packaging.

Yet, instead of criticizing the politicians and military leaders for their decisions, people outside the US blame normal people like myself for the problems, spitting on us for just living our lives. I'm going to work, trying to start a family, and not bothering anyone, just like they are doing in their country, yet I'm the evil satanic demon sucking the life blood from their country. Thanks.

Yeah, I don't pay much mind to threads like this. I can point out more than one country that stuck it's nose in where it didn't belong and did much more damage than the US has ever done (looking at you Spain, France, UK, Russia). In this age of instant news access, everything is blown way out of proportion so of course the US is the evil empire and it's people all fat and greedy.

But it's easy to just spit out hateful words on the Internet and say things that are untrue. (like Americans' value racism. Yeah, because Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X were respected white guys)

Because we all know that any of this talk actually matters.

I'm just a guy going to work, earning a paycheck, paying my mortgage and various utility bills. Do you think that I actually have any power to change what the US government sets its mind to do? I didn't have a say in what brushfire war my government stepped into, and any letters I wrote to any politician are basically ignored. My vote means nothing anymore since the politicians are all alike, just different packaging.

Yet, instead of criticizing the politicians and military leaders for their decisions, people outside the US blame normal people like myself for the problems, spitting on us for just living our lives. I'm going to work, trying to start a family, and not bothering anyone, just like they are doing in their country, yet I'm the evil satanic demon sucking the life blood from their country. Thanks.

Yeah, I don't pay much mind to threads like this. I can point out more than one country that stuck it's nose in where it didn't belong and did much more damage than the US has ever done (looking at you Spain, France, UK, Russia). In this age of instant news access, everything is blown way out of proportion so of course the US is the evil empire and it's people all fat and greedy.

But it's easy to just spit out hateful words on the Internet and say things that are untrue. (like Americans' value racism. Yeah, because Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X were respected white guys)

If your politicians, namely your senators and especially your represenatives in the house don't respond to you, then don't vote for them. It all starts with being proactive. My represenative (or at least one of his clerks) wrote me a long and thoughtful letter in response to an earlier letter outlining my concerns.

And if your upset that EA is spitting out a load of hate to anything that isn't Stalinism, that's just because he's EA and that's what he does.

I'm not really upset. I'm just older and sigh in exasperation when I hear the same junk repeated because someone like EA thinks its a cool thing to do, and does not actually understand what they speak on (or have such a distorted view on life that they need to believe in something just as warped...IE like EA)

I've written long, well thought out and respectful letters to my representatives. Their comments have always been nicely worded but the basic "thanks for letting us know how you feel but this is how we are going to vote". You vote for someone else but you get the same junk from them as well.

In fact, it's pretty much pointless to vote against the majority in some states (voting republican in a democratic state, or democratic in a republican state). Certainly you have 'made your voice heard', however it's a waste of time since all you are to politicians are votes. That's it. Votes to get them into office for them to vote how they wish. Not to represent the people but to represent themselves and the big companies that donate to them.

Anyway, I'm just tired of being pointed at and told that because I was born in American, tried to live a clean life, tried to raise a family and pay my bills without having a lot of debt, that I'm pretty much the anti-christ (or whatever evil people believe in).

American values: Imperialism, economic exploitation, militarism, racism, savage capitalism, class privilege etc.

Read their constitution. Your beloved communism has shown imperialism (Czechoslovakia and using USSR's force), economic exploitation (USSR taking anything they could from their allies), militarism (USSR again) and class privilege (the party, of course)

I bet you live in the UK or the like - and the good quality of life made you think serious bullcrap.

Do you think the American form of "imperialism", as some have come to call it, is a positive force in the world?

No I do not.

Read their constitution. Your beloved communism has shown imperialism (Czechoslovakia and using USSR's force), economic exploitation (USSR taking anything they could from their allies), militarism (USSR again) and class privilege (the party, of course)

I bet you live in the UK or the like - and the good quality of life made you think serious bullcrap.

Wrong and flame.

Because state-run media is oh so much better than private media :rolleyes:

The BBC is not state run, it's independently run (by a board of governors) using state funds and holding a mandate to present fair and unbiased news as a public service. This means it will often go to great pains to present all sides of an argument in an objective way as possible and is held accountable to the public on the basis of accuracy and truth.

Do I consider this better than private media? Yes. Why? Well because private media is held accountable to it's shareholders, it's profit and what-ever particular biases and political viewpoints it's CEO holds (no really: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7110532.stm). They are in it to get ratings (and thus advertisers) and sell papers (and thus advertising space). The BBC (and most state-funded media in western europe) has a mandate to perform a public service and is accountable... to the public. I'm not saying private media isn't important, it is good to get news from multiple sources to get a balanced view of events BUT there is a very good argument that state-funded media can be as good as private media, if not better.