Please explain to me why is U.S.A. dubbed as "Imperialistic" when U.S. hasn't occupied any land?

[Irish King]

Can't we all get along.

Anyway on to these two occupied countries. The original invasion, of Iraq was to remove a dictator that was extremely dangerous not only to the world but to his own country.(i.e. The Iraqi "ministry of sports" run by his brother) If we pulled out of Iraq to early, the region would fall into chaos and lead to the rise of another dictator, or even worse, the chaos would lead to genocidal events caused by the warlords that would doubtlessly arise. And even though we used a lame excuse to invade Iraq it was for a good purpose. Besides having a stable democracy in the region would bring security to an otherwise unstable region.

And Afghanistan. We invaded Afghanistan in search of the Taliban, And even though we've occupied the country for a long time, we're not overthrowing the government or anything, we're just hunting down insurgents and Taliban base camps. We're doing the country a favor that it was previously incapable of achieving on it's own due to its lack of resources. And if we pulled out of Afghanistan before hunting down every last member of the Taliban. They would claim victory and try more attacks such as 911 and the London subway attack.

And whoever said the British didn't have an Emperor in the 19th century, I forgot a king was so much different than an Emperor.

Oh and if you guys don't like McDonalds, eat your own food.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

This is just another re hatched Melian dialogue. The weak always whine about the actions of the strong, because whining is all they can do. It's a sad fact of history that every nation of power has behaved in an "Imperialistic" manner, simply because they can and it's often in their best interest to do so. If Iraq was the power that America is, I would fully expect them to act like America is, if not worse.

Fact is, no matter how violent or "war hungry" America has been, it pales in comparison to what every other major power has done, and what many of the current powers WOULD do, given the chance.

[Irish King]

Exactly.

[dogukan]

the fact that it is true does not mean we should stop whining.

[Monarchist]

...The weak always whine about the actions of the strong, because whining is all they can do. It's a sad fact of history that every nation of power has behaved in an "Imperialistic" manner, simply because they can and it's often in their best interest to do so. If Iraq was the power that America is, I would fully expect them to act like America is, if not worse.

Fact is, no matter how violent or "war hungry" America has been, it pales in comparison to what every other major power has done, and what many of the current powers WOULD do, given the chance.

I believe the point - at least, my point - is not that America is so imperialistic (an inevitable thing in a great power that helped to win a gigantic war), but that it is hypocritical in this regard. The Founding Fathers are not the entire nation, but their advice is constantly brought up by Americans. To remember the words of those great men is a blessing upon Americans, but to understand their words would be glorious.

Americans speak of freedom and capitalism (my two favorite things), and of the wise words of their Founders, but when a foreigner complains that American troops are in their country, some unthinking Americans yell "you're such a wuss; stop complaining!" My point is not that imperialism is the sole evil of Americans and no one else was ever guilty of it, but that Americans had and have a special duty to avoid exerting such militaristic influence. Frederick II of Prussia, Elizabeth of Russia, George III of England, and Louis XV of France didn't preach and warn against empire, so they cannot be accused of hypocrisy and shadow imperialism when they proclaimed a Prussian, a Russian, an English, or a French "empire". However, the Founders of America did specifically speak out against imperialism and nation-building; it was their core principle, for goodness' sake.

I mention Washington's farewell address to Congress because it seems very fitting in this situation. Good, freedom-loving Americans would do well to stop saying "you're just jealous of our power!" when a foreigner complains, and to remember that Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and all the other federal founders spoke out against this precise behavior. The gosh-darned point of America, at first, was to act as a "shining beacon" and a "torch"; not to immigrants, but to other nations and other peoples to see in the darkness of dictatorship and imperialism. The light was not the tail-signal of a bomber, and it was not the swinging lantern of an armed ship of the line, but it was a torch held up on America's shore, saying "It's possible! Freedom is possible! We did it here, and you can do it too with encouragement and faith in natural law! Rise up against such oppression, just as we did, and we will be your partners in trade and good will!"

The Barbary Wars, wherein American fleets destroyed the three-hundred year old Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean sea, are often brought up as an example of early American interventionism. However, only if the Barbary raiders had merely been attacking European shipping would America have been hypocritical to attack the Barbary coast, and this was not the case. American merchant vessels and trade ships were being attacked en route to Europe by these same bold raiders, so it was a war of national defense and not of foreign intervention. I wholeheartedly support wars in defense of a nation, and thus I believe it was right to go into Afghanistan to find that rat, Osama bin Laden. The only problem is that America descended into Afghanistan, found not one trace of bin Laden... and stayed to build up with NATO!

If a group of the founders stepped into today's America, they'd be called hippie isolationists by some of the very men who invoke their great names daily! I love American values, but come on. You can be an American and believe in state power and intervention, but don't invoke the names and words of your non-interventionist, diplomacy-driven, free-trade loving founders!

[torongill]

I believe the point - at least, my point - is not that America is so imperialistic (an inevitable thing in a great power that helped to win a gigantic war), but that it is hypocritical in this regard. The Founding Fathers are not the entire nation, but their advice is constantly brought up by Americans. To remember the words of those great men is a blessing upon Americans, but to understand their words would be glorious.

Americans speak of freedom and capitalism (my two favorite things), and of the wise words of their Founders, but when a foreigner complains that American troops are in their country, some unthinking Americans yell "you're such a wuss; stop complaining!" My point is not that imperialism is the sole evil of Americans and no one else was ever guilty of it, but that Americans had and have a special duty to avoid exerting such militaristic influence. Frederick II of Prussia, Elizabeth of Russia, George III of England, and Louis XV of France didn't preach and warn against empire, so they cannot be accused of hypocrisy and shadow imperialism when they proclaimed a Prussian, a Russian, an English, or a French "empire". However, the Founders of America did specifically speak out against imperialism and nation-building; it was their core principle, for goodness' sake.

I mention Washington's farewell address to Congress because it seems very fitting in this situation. Good, freedom-loving Americans would do well to stop saying "you're just jealous of our power!" when a foreigner complains, and to remember that Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and all the other federal founders spoke out against this precise behavior. The gosh-darned point of America, at first, was to act as a "shining beacon" and a "torch"; not to immigrants, but to other nations and other peoples to see in the darkness of dictatorship and imperialism. The light was not the tail-signal of a bomber, and it was not the swinging lantern of an armed ship of the line, but it was a torch held up on America's shore, saying "It's possible! Freedom is possible! We did it here, and you can do it too with encouragement and faith in natural law! Rise up against such oppression, just as we did, and we will be your partners in trade and good will!"

The Barbary Wars, wherein American fleets destroyed the three-hundred year old Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean sea, are often brought up as an example of early American interventionism. However, only if the Barbary raiders had merely been attacking European shipping would America have been hypocritical to attack the Barbary coast, and this was not the case. American merchant vessels and trade ships were being attacked en route to Europe by these same bold raiders, so it was a war of national defense and not of foreign intervention. I wholeheartedly support wars in defense of a nation, and thus I believe it was right to go into Afghanistan to find that rat, Osama bin Laden. The only problem is that America descended into Afghanistan, found not one trace of bin Laden... and stayed to build up with NATO!

If a group of the founders stepped into today's America, they'd be called hippie isolationists by some of the very men who invoke their great names daily! I love American values, but come on. You can be an American and believe in state power and intervention, but don't invoke the names and words of your non-interventionist, diplomacy-driven, free-trade loving founders!

I couldn't say it any better.

I find it sad and ironic that the Monroe Doctrine has evolved to the thing it is today.

[Monarchist]

Thanks a lot, torongill! I just love the ideals and values of America so much that I think it's my duty to defend them, despite it not being my country. Long live the U.S.A.! (And pray they get their stuff together)

[Ó Cathasaigh]

The Monroe Doctrine has nothing to do with current affairs. If it did, we'd still call it the Monroe Doctrine and not the Bush doctrine. What we have today is a major power doing what a major power does. Simple.
As I said before, it could be much much worse.

[torongill]

AFAIK the Monroe doctrine was created to prevent the countries of Southern America from foreign influence, i.e. prevent the European empires from devouring them and let them mature. But in due course this was transformed into "This is our zone, back thee off".

[Ludicus]

. Besides having a stable democracy in the region would bring security to an otherwise unstable region.

Show me a bastion of pro-western democracy in the middle east. The islamic nations took a turn toward radical Islam in 1979 (Khomeini´s islamic revolution) -and we should not forget that in 1979, the Sovietic invasion of Afghanistan inspired the US administrations to fund Islamic guerrillas (mujahedin) in their defience to the Russian army.
A stable "western" democracy in Iraq? an irrealist utopia. Tell me, what does democracy really mean in the middle east? in theocratic regimes? are non-theocratic regimes possible in Iran and Iraq?
And the next question: - is the lack of western democracy the real problem in the middle east?

[dogukan]

if a western democracy comes to Iraq...and they vote to nationalize oil fields(which will never ever happen with pro-usa government in these days), then you'll seeif the USA was caring about Iraq or not.

What Ó Cathasaigh says is true...and well the situation IS pretty damn bad. You just have to live in a not so western country to see the effects more clearly. And the fact that the super-power's intervene in the world's business does not mean we should not fight back.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Moreover, majority rule in Iraq means Shi'a rule. Now, who's Shi'a, and anti-US, and very close....?

[persianfan247]

The USA should just stop invading souverein countries and they should stop meddling with there internal policies, to start with.

You know how people are saying that know matter what they do the U.S will be seen as bad, well if it didn't keep on ignoring rules and things like the U.N then it wouldn't would, Im not saying people won't talk about how bad it is then, but there would be alot less people saying it and I hate there veto power in the U.N security council.

They weren't a part of the original league of nations and the main reason why they accepted the U.N and became a member was because they were given there veto power and a permeneant position.

I am actually quite happy for the U.S to have its empire, because any other power that would replace it would hardly be better than it and if there was multiple super-powers thant I think there would be alot more conflict and a world without any superpowers would probably be even more chaotic, not that the U.S is perfect or that its impossible to get something better.

[OneArmedScissor]

http://colombiareports.com/colombia-...tary-pact.html

Bolivian President Evo Morales said Wednesday he will propose a South American referendum on Bogota's decision to grant the U.S. military access to Colombian bases.

Morales will suggest the referendum at the UNASUR meeting in Bariloche, Argentina, on Friday where the South American leaders will meet to discuss the military agreement between the U.S. and Colombia.

According to the Bolivian President, this meeting is an opportunity "to discuss the dignity and sovereignty of South America." Morales reiterated his rejection of any U.S. base in the region and said, as a last instance, the conflicts should be settled by a popular vote.

"... if the Colombian President does not withdraw [U.S.] military bases from Colombia, why don't we go to a referendum in South America? The people of the 12 countries shall make a referendum on the military bases in South America," Morales said.

Bogota and Washington are close to signing an agreement that allows the U.S. to use Colombian bases for their fight against drug trafficking and terrorism. Morales is together with Venezuela and Ecuador one of the biggest opponents of the military agreement.

The Bolivian President even accused the United States of using the FARC to justify their military presence in Colombia. The FARC are "the best instrument of the U.S. empire" as the fight against the guerrillas has become the pretext for the military agreement, Morales said Monday.

Despite several explanations about the accord by high U.S. officials and a South American tour by Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, the plan continues to raise concerns in a large number of Latin American countries.

not imperialist

Can't we all get along.

Anyway on to these two occupied countries. The original invasion, of Iraq was to remove a dictator that was extremely dangerous not only to the world but to his own country.(i.e. The Iraqi "ministry of sports" run by his brother) If we pulled out of Iraq to early, the region would fall into chaos and lead to the rise of another dictator, or even worse, the chaos would lead to genocidal events caused by the warlords that would doubtlessly arise. And even though we used a lame excuse to invade Iraq it was for a good purpose. Besides having a stable democracy in the region would bring security to an otherwise unstable region.

And Afghanistan. We invaded Afghanistan in search of the Taliban, And even though we've occupied the country for a long time, we're not overthrowing the government or anything, we're just hunting down insurgents and Taliban base camps. We're doing the country a favor that it was previously incapable of achieving on it's own due to its lack of resources. And if we pulled out of Afghanistan before hunting down every last member of the Taliban. They would claim victory and try more attacks such as 911 and the London subway attack.

And whoever said the British didn't have an Emperor in the 19th century, I forgot a king was so much different than an Emperor.

Oh and if you guys don't like McDonalds, eat your own food.

These people are bad. Therefore, invade a country.

Just a reminder one of America's founding fathers and first president said verbatim that America was an infant empire. Moreover and that it was supposed to continue expanding.

edit: His name was George Washington

[Frederich Barbarossa]

Imperialism has a different meaning these days. The US trying to expand their influence in other countries, and directly or indirectly control them, as well as the large numbers of troops deployed in foreign countries and the spread of American culture and values to other countries (Whether they like it or not) is what people mean by imperialism.

Oh sshhh please. Spreading Influence??? If that were true then all its Allies would be Americanized. You cant change cultures.

[Ter]

Oh sshhh please. Spreading Influence??? If that were true then all its Allies would be Americanized. You cant change cultures, dont be stupid.

Believe it or not a lot of them are to some extent. Cultures change all the time and the US is bringing elements to countries all over the world, for better or worse.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Britain and Russia never had emperors...

[Pontifex Maximus]

We aren't imperialists, we're disgruntled isolationists forced into situations we would rather not be.

Seriously though, I don't know if imperialist describes the US. If it did we would still have 13 colonies...in Western Europe and the Pacific. Influential and selfish would be better adjectives, although for my own personal interests, that isn't a bad thing. That being said, I'm not in favor of military involvement all over the globe.

[OneArmedScissor]

We aren't imperialists, we're disgruntled isolationists forced into situations we would rather not be.

Seriously though, I don't know if imperialist describes the US. If it did we would still have 13 colonies...in Western Europe and the Pacific. Influential and selfish would be better adjectives, although for my own personal interests, that isn't a bad thing. That being said, I'm not in favor of military involvement all over the globe.

This comment is pretty much on par with Glenn Beck and other retards calling the Nazi party a left wing group because they're the National SOCIALISTS!

[Pontifex Maximus]

This comment is pretty much on par with Glenn Beck and other retards calling the Nazi party a left wing group because they're the National SOCIALISTS!

...When did I say anything about the nazi party?