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

[Keravnos]

I guess I can't answer this one. In all sorts of parades and demonstrations the words "Yankees go home" or "Americans leave" and "Down with American Imperialists" are heard or seen painted in placards.

That bears an interesting question. How can anyone call U.S.A imperialistic post 1918? To my mind at least, to call any nation imperialist, two conditions would have to exist. A) That nation should be an Empire, aka have an emperor, a dictator or a secretary general. "Empires" such as that of a democratically elected nation can't count other than in metaphor, not in reality. B) That nation should have exhibited an aggressive stance of conquering new lands to add to its existing ones. Again, while many nation did this post 1918 (or tried to in any case), U.S.A. didn't.

Is US a Superpower? Yes. Is it an Empire? No, not in the sense of Roman Empire, British Empire, German Empire, USSR empire or the would be empire, the Nazi 3rd Reich (that was a bit of a phail, only 12 years out of the proposed 1000). "Empire" if used in US context is a metaphor, to be used for comparison, rather than an actual empire in the actual sense of Roman Empire of yore, even if truth be told a lot of comparisons can be made. Imperialistic? How could anyone utter those words when NO LANDS WERE CONQUERED AND INCORPORATED TO USA BY US TROOPS POST 1918. Everywhere US troops interfered, they did so to defend the country in question, (mostly from USSR-financed and armed guerillas -Vietnam is the prime suspect here) or crazy dictators (Panama) or to keep the country from falling to genocidal practices, (Bosnia and Kosovo).

Look at the map of 1918. Then that of 1947. Many countries changed borders, either to lose or to win territory. USSR was one of those countries which benefitted from border change. As they gained territory its "Empire" increased, therefore the title "Imperialistic" should go to them. How can it be used for the U.S.A.?

Imperialistic is a title which would definitely go to the Empire of Japan for two reasons. First for the fact that it was indeed an Empire, then for the fact that it conquered territory which it sought to keep, as a conquest which it sought to exploit being its own territory.

Imperialistic is a title which would definitely go to USSR. It was an empire in anything but name and its emperor was called "Secretary General" and his name was Joseph Stalin. It conquered a lot of ground which it kept for itself and even had satellite states whose prime job was to defend USSR (I personally don't believe that the Soviet union's primary goal was none else but to have a buffer between itself and the West. "Revolution export" was fine, but primarily there needed to be a buffer. USSR had been invaded as in its borders there was a hostile axis of nations. It didn't want to deal with that any more.

Imperialistic is a title that could definitely be used for Britain. In fact that title is taylor made for Britain. It both had an Emperor/Empress and many overseas territories, which were its own property, administered and exploited by UK citizens.

Imperialistic is definitely a title to use for Germany, both the Second and the Third Reich. The second was Imperial Germany with Kaizer/emperor and its fight for new grounds brought us WW1. As for the third reich, its emperor was called "Fuhrer" and its official ideology (other than wiping out Jews) was "Lebensraum" or territorial expansion for the sake of the "Master Race".

Like I said, all military operations of the U.S. post 1918 were done to keep the peace. Not to add lands.
Every single one of them.

Let me count the failures first, then the success stories.

Vietnam: US tried (and failed) to support S. Vietnam.
Cuba: US tried (and failed) to support the people's fight against the Communist Regime.
Somalia (with others): US tried and failed to create a country out of the Chaos put in place by the Warlords.

Then come the countries in which U.S. involvment was instrumental in keeping the peace and allowing these countries a better future.

France: US (along with Allied troops, many of those French) liberated France.
W. Germany: US (along with Allied troops) liberated W. Germany and part of Berlin.
Holland: US (along with Allied troops, many of those French) liberated Holland
Austria: US (along with Allied troops) liberated Austria.
Norway: US (along with Allied troops) liberated Norway.
Denmark: US (along with Allied troops) liberated Denmark.
Belgium: US (along with Allied troops) liberated Belgium.
Luxembourg: US (along with Allied troops) liberated Luxembourg.
Italy: US (along with Allied troops) liberated Italy.
Greece: US helped the Greek government defeat and throw out of the country the Communists guerillas
S. America: Most if not all military operations there were either against Communism or against Drug lords. (Many times those two would mingle-see Columbia's communist rebels who sell drugs to keep in business-torturing, killing and maming innocents, that is)
Iraq 1: Iraq had invaded Kuwait.
Iraq 2: To rid the world of Saddam and his WMDs (which were unfortunately not there)
Afghanistan: To destroy the Taliban who perpetrated 9/11 bombings and destroy taliban training camps.

What those Taliban training camps did do is create the monster-minds behind London tube bombings and Madrid bombings.

Therefore, I have to ask for an explanation why is US dubbed "Imperialistic" when U.S.A hasn't added one square inch of territory it didn't have in 1918 but reduced it instead (Philippines are now a free Nation).

Please explain this to me, because I don't seem to get it.

[boofhead]

A lot of words mean little when the facts are bare.

US drowns the world in its culture, not it's intellect.

[Keravnos]

A lot of words mean little when the facts are bare.

US drowns the world in its culture, not it's intellect.

Well, winning does have its priviledges.
Tell me, what do you think of these poor misunderstood well doers that U.S. has actively opposed?

[Azog 150]

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.

[Keravnos]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
According to wiki,

The word itself is derived from the Latin verb imperare (to command) and the Roman concept of imperium, while the actual term 'Imperialism' was coined in the sixteenth century,[8] reflecting what are now seen as the imperial policies of Belgium, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Imperialism not only describes colonial, territorial policies, but also economic and/or military dominance and influence.

Note that I wasn't talking about cultural Imperialism, which ANY nation that would be in U.S.A.'s position would exercise, whether willingly or unwillingly and who hasn't had the results that Han did when they conquered all of China (all of China is Han now) or Spaniards when they conquered S. America (all countries but Brazil speak Spanish).

I speak Greek in my daily life. If I eat at a McDonald's or drink Coca cola or Pepsi this hasn't made me a different person. I do believe in shared values with the U.S. and if you read the first post, Greece has been saved by U.S. whether we Greeks care to admit it or not (we 're famous for our inability to grasp who has actually helped us and who has actually hurt us. Some people in Greece today have issues figuring out which is which, even if it couldn't be simpler, really).

All in all, even if music, tv, movies show mostly U.S. productions, this has more to do with the quality of them than the fact that there is a "conspiracy" to not allow other movies or series to be shown. Many countries have created tv industries which have flourished around the world.

Personally I don't believe in "cultural Imperialism", because for it to succeed the country in question would have to have been militarily conquered and people realize that it would be in their best interest (...or else) to join the dominating culture. This has happened many times throughout history. This is NOT what USA is doing. I don't see any Americans with guns out killing school teachers and placing their own in their stead.

The following is cultural Imperialism at work...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In the lands conquered by Muslim armies, Arabic language and Arabic culture prevailed. From Morocco all the way to Indonesia, many local languages, religion, architecture, customs, even names were mixed with Arab Islamic traditions. Examples include the incorporation of Arabic calligraphy into the design of the Hagia Sofia mosque in Istanbul upon its conversion from a church. A significant amount of independence was kept for local traditions in many places that maintained daily interactions with non-Islamic lands; economically, politically, and culturally. An example is the continued existence of belly-dancing, which according to the stricter rulings of modesty and propriety in Islamic rulings is a fairly taboo practice, however, it is found all across the Middle East. Cultural imperialism is also witnessed in Islamic lands gained through the incorporation of the Arabic language into the culture and educational systems.
This dissemination of Arabic may be partly explained by the fact that according to Islamic tradition the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an, is written in Arabic that has never changed the slightest bit in content or language ever since the times of the Muhammad in the seventh century AD.[2] Furthermore, Islamic tradition has also held that translations of the Qur'an from Arabic, a metaphorical, tri-literal-root, semitic language, into other languages may introduce changes in the nuanced meanings of the words. Thus, wherever Islam spread new adherents were encouraged to master classical Arabic for their Qur'anic studies.

I do believe that Christianity and Islam should co-exist in a world of Tolerance and a spirit of peace. A good place for that to start would be in the treatment of present day Israel, that most people from the Islamic world are trained to hate since birth.

I do think that a big part of the world is resentful of U.S. successes over the years and is constantly trying to find a toehold from which to elevate to U.S. standards (good luck-honestly. This would mean that you 'd have to out produce, out gun and out smart/ out research the US). What most people do, however, is to try to deny, and reduce both U.S. and what's worse all the sacrifices that U.S. and its armed forces have endured in order for us to be free. That's just false.

Today the most effective use of cultural imperialism is though films, clothing brands, food, books and many other daily life items. It is mainly executed by the USA with Hollywood films (especially film like Rambo), popular brands like Converse, Nike, Abercrombie & Fitch, which many teenagers around the world wear and are affected, and also documentaries (like History Channel which promotes American military and technology).

Therefore, even in here, where we talk about wars of ancient times, we are actively promoting cultural imperialism, right? WRONG. We are just talking about the games we like, which span many eras, NONE of which is "promoting American military and technology".

Hollywood films, clothing brands, food, books and many other daily life items.

Hollywood films have a lot of viewers because, they are simply the best.
Clothing brands come mainly from China and those who don't are mostly Greek over here.
The food we eat over here is Greek too.
Books are mainly in Greek and as for many other daily life items, well, they too are in Greek. If they carry english lettering it is because people demand it and it can be exported as well. You see as English has become a lingua franca of the day, people speak and communicate using English. We are all bi-lingual. How can this be a bad thing? If you look at periods of stability, there was always a lingua franca and people were effectively bi-lingual. (Augustus' Roma comes to mind, but Hellenistic states would fit the bill as well).

Last but not least the popular brands that people wear, they do because it is fashionable. It doesn't change who you are. When and if that particular pop culture changes, so do the clothes. If that new pop culture belongs to a different country or culture (remember Lambada?) does this mean that "a different country has taken over culturally" ? This is just too much.

Here's what U.S. is doing, which is also the case in European Union, India and other places...

The most important way to deal with cultural influence in any nation, according to Rothkopf, is to promote tolerance and allow, or even promote, cultural diversities that are compatible with tolerance and to eliminate those cultural differences that cause violent conflict:
Successful multicultural societies, be they nations, federations, or other conglomerations of closely interrelated states, discern those aspects of culture that do not threaten union, stability, or prosperity (such as food, holidays, rituals, and music) and allow them to flourish. But they counteract or eradicate the more subversive elements of culture (exclusionary aspects of religion, language, and political/ideological beliefs). History shows that bridging cultural gaps successfully and serving as a home to diverse peoples requires certain social structures, laws, and institutions that transcend culture. Furthermore, the history of a number of ongoing experiments in multiculturalism, such as in the European Union, India, South Africa, Canada and the United States, suggests that workable, if not perfected, integrative models exist. Each is built on the idea that tolerance is crucial to social well-being, and each at times has been threatened by both intolerance and a heightened emphasis on cultural distinctions. The greater public good warrants eliminating those cultural characteristics that promote conflict or prevent harmony, even as less-divisive, more personally observed cultural distinctions are celebrated and preserved.

No, I have to say that this isn't the reason.
U.S.A. is dubbed as "Imperialistic" because of what "comrade" (yeah right) Lenin wrote...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism#Imperialism

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In his Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916) Lenin advanced the view that imperialism is the highest stage of the capitalist economic system.

------ Therefore U.S.A. the backbone of the world's economy (China being its lungs) is the top imperialist. This is why all the placards point to U.S. as such.

Lenin developed a theory of imperialism aimed to improve and update Marx's work by explaining a phenomenon which Marx predicted: the shift of capitalism towards becoming a global system (hence the slogan "Workers of the world, unite!").

Globalization happened and EVERYONE in the world benefitted, but those who actually believe in Communism (Cuba-N. Korea)

At the core of this theory of imperialism lies the idea that advanced capitalist industrial nations increasingly come to export capital to captive colonial countries.

Colonies? Which colonies? What was truth in the 19th century just isn't now. If the freed up colonies can't function on their own, how is that the fault of Capitalism? How about those who did manage to create a better life for their people?

They then exploit those colonies for their resources and investment opportunities. This superexploitation of poorer countries allows the advanced capitalist industrial nations to keep at least some of their own workers content, by providing them with slightly higher living standards. (See labor aristocracy; globalization.)

The single most "exploited" countries for their resources and investment opportunities are Australia, Canada and Russia. Are those "super-exploited" "poorer" countries worse off? I think an average person can have a great life both in Australia and hopefully in Russia too some years down the road.

For these reasons, Lenin argued that a proletarian revolution could not occur in the developed capitalist countries as long as the global system of imperialism remained intact. Thus, he believed that a lesser-developed country would have to be the location of the first proletarian revolution. This was an open revision of Marx's thesis that such a revolution could only occur in a developed capitalist country. A particularly good candidate, in his view, was Russia - which Lenin considered to be the "weakest link" in global capitalism at the time.[6] At the time, Russia's economy was primarily agrarian (outside of the large cities of St. Petersburg and Moscow), still driven by peasant manual and animal labor, and very underdeveloped compared to the industrialized economies of western Europe and North America.
In 1915, Lenin wrote, “Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organised its own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world.” (The ‘United States of Europe Slogan’, Collected Works, Vol. 18, p. 232.)

In layman's terms, Lenin from the get go wanted to create a new world order, a communistic super state, or a COMECON which would span the world over. In other words, 1984

As Lenin realised that Russia was an agrarian and underdeveloped country (which had to be developed first industrially then try to "export revolution") he was effectively preparing the ground for the Stalinist terror which was to follow. Stalin killed off those farmers who wanted to hold on to their private lands by the hundreds of thousands (some say by the millions) and used the broken ones to create hundreds of new plants, effectively building up the industry at Russia with the first of his 5-year-plans. Lenin was no stranger to what Stalin was about to do. Lenin even created the secret police which kept Stalin in power. Let's be honest about who and what we are dealing with. One of the worst forms of oppression.

After the revolution, in 1918, he wrote, “I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.” (Speech delivered at a joint meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Moscow Soviet, 14th May 1918, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 9.)

Yep, Lenin showing his Stalinistic qualities.

Please answer me, how many times has Lenin been discredited? Where is his legacy now? Which dustbin, that is?
All of his statues (or almost all) are melted as even junk metal was more valuable than a portrait of a Second Reich's spy (Imperial Germany's name) whose ideas are really not worth the time spent to link to them as they have been disproved tens of times over.

I suggest we treat them as his former statues: Recycle the paper they are printed on and be done with it.

[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.

[Manco]

You're taking imperialism too literal. It's just a way to describe far reaching political, social, cultural and economic influence. (though one could argue that while the US hasn't conquered land, it has installed a modern version of client-states all over the world, and has military bases almost everywhere)

[Delta228]

You're taking imperialism too literal. It's just a way to describe far reaching political, social, cultural and economic influence. (though one could argue that while the US hasn't conquered land, it has installed a modern version of client-states all over the world, and has military bases almost everywhere)

Bingo.

People get mad that McDonalds and other aspects of American culture have found a way into nearly every country.

[slaptast!ck]

It's more than just the culture and the movies and the restaurants. It's the conquest of free market ideology, and the extremely evil and flawed belief that lassez-faire capitalism is the best available economic system. If you want to understand how it really works, what it really means, read The Shock Doctrine

the imperialism is that of globalization, of multi-national corporations exploiting countries and people all over the world for the benefit of a handful of extremely wealthy shareholders.

the CIA has been planning and executing Coups since World War 2 in Africa, South and Central America, Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East. torture is nothing new for the CIA.. it has been an integral part of the process since the outset.

and of course on a more basic level you have the reach and territory of the US Military. if you include all the countries in the world that harbour US troops, and have US/NATO military bases, then the United States of America is easily the largest empire in the history of the world.

[Godless Pickle]

It's more than just the culture and the movies and the restaurants. It's the conquest of free market ideology, and the extremely evil and flawed belief that lassez-faire capitalism is the best available economic system. If you want to understand how it really works, what it really means, read The Shock Doctrine

the imperialism is that of globalization, of multi-national corporations exploiting countries and people all over the world for the benefit of a handful of extremely wealthy shareholders.

the CIA has been planning and executing Coups since World War 2 in Africa, South and Central America, Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East. torture is nothing new for the CIA.. it has been an integral part of the process since the outset.

and of course on a more basic level you have the reach and territory of the US Military. if you include all the countries in the world that harbour US troops, and have US/NATO military bases, then the United States of America is easily the largest empire in the history of the world.

You bastard! You stole my avator!

[ivan_the_terrible]

It's very naive to think that Imperialism requires physical annexation of territories.

There are many more ways to assert influence.

[slaptast!ck]

B) That nation should have exhibited an aggressive stance of conquering new lands to add to its existing ones. Again, while many nation did this post 1918 (or tried to in any case), U.S.A. didn't.

Look at the map of 1918. Then that of 1947. Many countries changed borders, either to lose or to win territory. USSR was one of those countries which benefitted from border change. As they gained territory its "Empire" increased, therefore the title "Imperialistic" should go to them. How can it be used for the U.S.A.?

Like I said, all military operations of the U.S. post 1918 were done to keep the peace. Not to add lands.
Every single one of them.

Therefore, I have to ask for an explanation why is US dubbed "Imperialistic" when U.S.A hasn't added one square inch of territory it didn't have in 1918 but reduced it instead (Philippines are now a free Nation).

Please explain this to me, because I don't seem to get it.

WOW. this seems to me incredibly obtuse.

Both the Philippines and Japan may be 'free' nations, but they have NO military to speak of, and they are both home to large US Military bases.

in military terms, they are effectively United States territory... and this same rule goes for many other countries.

the same could be said of Australia and Canada.. their national armies are extremely small, and they are both host to large numbers of US troops and I would be very surprised if many of their military decisions didn't come directly from the Pentagon.

in tactical terms, Australia and Canada are effectively United States territory.

so, while the Politcal map of America may have not changed much since 1918, the Tactical Map has probably grown faster than any other empire in history.

[Keravnos]

WOW. this seems to me incredibly obtuse.

Allow me to consider your opinion with one word: "UNGRATEFULNESS".
We all here owe to the soldiers who fought in WW2. Even more so to those who came from overseas to help us get our countries back, get our continent back and even more so, get our freedoms back.

If Nazis continued to occupy Europe you 'd be braking rocks somewhere, had you been alive. Had commies still got it, it'd be the same. Probably only the location would differ.

You think I am making this up? Did you see why people were deported to work camps or gulags?
In Nazi occupied Greece, a wrong look in a Nazi unterofficier would get the Entelweis brigade over, meaning village burnt, everyone killed except those who would be sent over at the Death factories or work camps.
Sholzenyzen (sorry if I mis-spelled the name) was exiled to Siberia for taking potshots at Stalin over a letter for crying out loud.

Both the Philippines and Japan may be 'free' nations, but they have NO military to speak of, and they are both home to large US Military bases.

So? Both nations have their armies (which are quite good, I assure you-google for more if you want). They both are allies with the U.S. Would you have a nation vs nation quarrel, just to support your notion of "independance"?

All allies of the U.S. are perfectly independent. This is what you don't seem to realize. We are allies because we have chosen to be, because we have been helped by US in too many ways to number, because, of all things, that's where our interests lie. We have a historical memory and also a supposedly minor quality called "gratitude". We're fine, thank you.

in military terms, they are effectively United States territory... and this same rule goes for many other countries.

Again, last I checked, all states are fine by themselves. The point to be made is simple: All countries that allied with the US did so to fight against Communism. We won. Right now a new world is upon us with all the challenges and pitfalls that this means. Would you have us break the bonds that bind us and turn away from our allies and friends in order to be "free" and "independent". Freedom has been earned by the blood of all our WW2 troops, the GI's and the Marines who fought during WW2. "Independence" in modern world, by your definition would mean living in a N. Korea like state. Alliance on the other hand means the world we live in, one that you don't really like, I can tell.

the same could be said of Australia and Canada.. their national armies are extremely small, and they are both host to large numbers of US troops and I would be very surprised if many of their military decisions didn't come directly from the Pentagon.

Being part of NATO the decisions are taken in the NATO HQ. Being part of an alliance means that you don't necessarily "go it alone" and that certain decisions are taken jointly. Every country retains the rights awarded by the NATO accords and can choose to exercise them at will. US, if I recall correctly would want to have more countries involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This isn't always the case, which in turn means that it isn't a Master-slave situation as you make it out to be, it is a honest debate between ALLIES.

in tactical terms, Australia and Canada are effectively United States territory.

This has gone far enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada

Go there and read some facts. Otherwise, there's always the movie "Matrix" to fall back on. I love Matrix myself but I understand it is science fiction.

so, while the Politcal map of America may have not changed much since 1918, the Tactical Map has probably grown faster than any other empire in history.

Are we all slaves of the US? Do we report to the lords and masters who control us through mind rays or something? It is clear that what you and I consider to be the truth of what we see is absolutely different.
You seek conspiracy and intrigue, I try to figure out what is the truth and what is a false accusation.

I believe that U.S. has been a force for good in the world. U.S. is more powerful than you can possibly imagine, but you don't see any goose stepping automatons marching around in a display of "I OWN YOU" attitude that you would have had Nazis or Soviets won. What you do see is a proud country in alliance to most of the world, determined to destroy terrorism and promote tolerance AND what's the most important I think, lead the fight against global warming and the irrefutable consequences thereof.

In the meantime, I suggest you read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
It will answer all your questions to the fullest.

It's rather silly to say that America post 1918 wasn't an empire, seeing as A) it had overseas possession and B) it practiclly controlled many other nations.

Phillipines were awarded statehood, Haiti is NOT a part of U.S. (to whomever that posted this) as for "practically controlling other nations" that can mean anything, therefore I don't accept it.

What happened was that U.S. supported democratic (at times they turned out to be not so democratic-NOT so now.) regimes in allied countries, whereas Warsaw pact (USSR and proxies) supported communistic revolutions wherever they could (mostly Africa and S. America through Cuba,mostly)

Again, an empire doesn't have to have direct control to be an empire. Half of the British empire by 1939 consisted out of dominions, mandate territories, puppet regimes and other forms of relative self-government, but still under British dominance. By 1900 it had considerable influence outside of it's direct control, having a lot of influence in Iran, Afghanistan, China and South America.

I disagree. All those forms of government you mentioned were clearly imperialistic. Total control, in effect, but with a different name. Up to 1939, not much could be done in any dominion country that UK didn't approve of.

Not so now. Let me give you an example concerning my own country Greece. From 1981-1989 a party called PASOK or "Panhellenic Socialist Movement" rose to power by elections. Had it been a UK dominion it is possible that this wouldn't have happened. You don't believe me, just look at how Ghandi's demonstrations were handled.

Not so here. Even if there was resentment, I didn't see anyone from U.S. invading Greece to let a more friendly regime in power. PASOK was voted into power with slogans as "Get out of NATO, Get out of EU", but thank God, pretty soon they realized the North Korean fate that awaited Greece and forgot all about that.

True, the US didn't conquer much after 1918 (they had already acquired possessions and influence prior to that), but they did not have to, or even, were forced not to. The world after 1945 was very strange. Clearly dominanted and divided amongst two superpowers, trying to damage the influence sphere of the other, without risking all-out war nor make it too obvious. After 1945 the USSR supported the rise of Communist groups in Eastern Europe, whilst the US stimulated democracies in Western Europe. The US founded NATO with the idea to form a defensive bloc against the Communists, the USSR formed the Warshaw Pact for similair reasons. Both supported democratic/Communist groups across the globe, and establishing puppet states. A lot of it was based on indirect control. Proxy wars were common. First the Korean war. Communist N. Korea invades Democratic S. Korea. Both were essentially autocratic countries led by men which were either installed or strongly supported by the US and USSR. Both sides committed war crimes during the war. The US responded by what is essentially a politional action, the USSR by supplying N. Korea with airmen and weaponry.

Even so, USSR added a LOT of territory after the conclusion of WWII. Former East Prussia was one of them, still Russian as I recall. The rest of your analysis is accurate and thank you for it, but I do believe that US didn't add land because US isn't imperialistic as I tried to explain in detail in my first post, which I must refer you to. U.S. troops are in Korea to guard against N. Korean intrusions NOT to attack and destroy N. Korea or to "enslave" S. Korea. S. Korea was LIBERATED by the U.S.

I guess this is where we differ, but the difference couldn't have been more obvious. S. Korea and N. Korea. One is a US ally the other a former USSR ally now left to fend for itself. Observe the difference and see for yourself how benevolent America and all it stands for are. I would use the term applied for the Intel founder, personally. "Gentle Giant" when talking about US and I absolutely believe what I say. Then look at N. Korea and understand how disastrous and plain evil are those that the Stalinists of yore have inflicted upon their slaves. Look at those and then tell me who is imperialist and who isn't.

Vietnam was largely the same, Afghanistan comparable. The US set up or supported many ''democratic'' regimes across the world, just as the USSR did with ''socialistic'' regime. More than often, as in the case of Korea and Vietnam, the ''democratic'' and ''socialistic'' leaders were just autocrats who eliminated any form of political rivalry.

Vietnam was a case of communist indoctrination and US being co-related to the French colonials. US had nothing to do with them, but the average Vietnamese thought they would turn the country over to the French, if US won. It was much easier to hear the communist indoctrinator's message that the communists would provide food and tools for a better tomorrow. Communism's top trick had always been its propaganda and his seductive, albeit utterly false promises.

It's rather odd that you speak of an ''USSR empire'', yet denounce the notion of a ''US empure''. This is rather wrong, seeing as, as you can see above, both empires weren't that different in practice.

However much I respect your opinion, allow me to completely disagree. Like I said earlier, compare a "US proxy", S. Korea to a "USSR proxy", N. Korea. The "difference in practice" couldn't have been greater or visible. S. Korea has gone on to become one of the worlds richest and most prosperous nations, while N. Korea has major troubles even feeding its own population.

Both established a sphere of influence of allies, puppet regimes and other cases, and did anything to expand and maintain those spheres. The USSR supplied N. Korea and N. Vietnam, the US supplied the Mujihadeen.

What is the end result of this protracted warfare? Of all the proxy wars what was the end result? Did U.S. gain one inch of more ground? US tried to do in S. Vietnam what it id in S. Korea, but was falsely identified with the French colonials, I think and therefore lost. If in S. Korea, the S. Koreans considered U.S. GIs and Marines as stand ins for the Japanese colonials who had occupied their country, it is possible that the same thing would have occurred. Even so, even as US lost in Vietnam, Indonesia and Thailand were spared.

As for the Mujahedin, US supported those who fought the Soviets. From that point on, to the Taliban emerging, too many unforeseen events took place for anyone to consider that US could have predicted what might have occurred. One of the allies against the Russians was certain to blow back, in any case. The ruggedness of the terrain in Afghanistan and the population which has been at bare subsistance levels for so long don't help in the least.

Even so, staying the course is essential. In Alexander's time it was the nomads who - if they occupied present day Afghanistan would destroy all of his empire, right now it is the proven by 9/11 fact that if the Taliban are allowed even one place in the world for R+R new terrorist attacks will occur. Afghanistan has been that place once, and it is up to all of us to make sure it doesn't happen again.

The USSR tried to maintain the Communistic regimes in Hungary and Afghanistan, the US tried to maintain the democratic regimes in Korea, Vietnam and Cuba. Both through military might.

Compare the communist regimes then to the ones existing in those places now. No communism in Hungary or Afghanistan. This should serve as an indication of who won, who outlasted economically his opponent, and whose ideology and practices are supreme.

@Keravnos
this is modern imperialism.....USA has invaded every country economically...and is using it. You are Greek, I thought Greeks were sensitive about this.

Like I said, I am grateful that USA helped the government in 1947-1949 defeat the communist guerillas.
Even if the events which led to the dictatorship of 1967 and the dictatorship itself are debatable, it seems that the people who wanted to have both played into the US fear of communist encroachment.

Even so, the good that we have been blessed by NOT living in a communist country is too good to simply dismiss as "Imperialism". As I said, that cultural domination everyone's been speaking off, just isn't there. Only when combined with an occupying force and death threats can it work or will it. This just doesn't happen in NATO countries. Let's not mix NATO countries with what the Taliban are doing in the countries in which they have taken hold of.

They have established this empire using the "communist" threat with NATO. Most intelligences are related to CIA today. At least in Turkey under every stone you can reach USA at some point. The coups, political murders...etc
Pro-American army= you pay for buying their weapons for insntace

That threat you speak of was REAL. I guess the real question is whether to disband NATO now that the communists are gone. Truth is that we can't. Remember what happened as ENTENTE fell into disuse after WW1? Hitler, that's what. Hitler and USSR, that Hitler used as an excuse to climb to power. Both of which would have been averted if an organisation as NATO had stood firm, defending what 's right, thwarting and destroying what's not.

Alas, the best way to honor those dead is to make sure that whole generations won't have to die en masse, like those in WW1 and WW2 did. "Keeping the peace" is what USA has done incredibly well. Blaming USA and CIA for any local mishap is the norm all over the world. It isn't necessarily true, however.

In another thread, I posted against similar pre-conceptions that have grown into an "urban legend" status in my country, Greece. That somehow US created the coup in Cyprus that allowed the Turks to invade, whereas it was just an atrocious creation of the junta of Greece, along with Nationalists in Cyprus. It goes without saying that the fool in charge, aka dictator Ioannides tried to pin the blame on USA, but tell me, who wouldn't?

Didn't Saddam blame USA for leading him to believe that it was "Ok to invade Kuwait"? Who in their right mind would believe such a thing, either happening or being used to justify an unlawful invasion? Yet it did happen. Dictators Ioannides and Saddam both tried to blame US for supposedly allowing them to go on their own grandiose plans, and when those turned sour, pinned the blame on U.S.

Unfortunately there are people who believe this to this very day.
No, I don't know why. Perhaps they have been indoctrinated to hate US since birth, while allowing for countries which WERE evil, aka Nazi Germany and USSR a free reign. It has to do something with being successful and a winer. That means despised and hated in this world.

By using these contacts, or "dictators they placed(see latin America, Iran, Iraq) they make their access to resources in these regions easier. Like what they are doing in Iraq today. Oil companies already made their deals with the puppet pro-American government which has a totally American controlled Iraqi army...etc

This is pretty damn imperialism if I'm asked.

Tell me, who do you hang out with in real life? Don't you trust your friends to be people that actually like you rather than people who would spit you rather than even look at you? USA has naturally tried to be in good terms with people who would rather speak rather than shoot. Presently I don't believe that USA actively supports ANY dictatorial regime. Feel free to let me know of one if you can.

As for dictators they placed, I think the major reason for that was the fear of those countries going Communist. One thing that we all fail to apprehend in its enormity right now, is the clear and present danger of this happening. It was a stated goal of USSR to promote and export revolution to any and all countries which would want it.

As for Oil companies, do USA control Dutch Shell? British Petroleum either?

Up to a point on the first and only tangentially on the second - don't mistake my point I am not arguing the US was not imperialist or never made mistakes (show me the state that did not... the Athenians might find comfort these 2500 years dead knowing Osama and Saddam came back to bite us in the ass much the way Boeotian and Lesbian aristocrats did them). Rather I just pointed out the US does in fact pursue its self interest at any one moment rather as cold blooded in general as any other great power ever has. I would argue on the begin side of the scale - but still a scale skewed by self interest.

Nobody says that US didn't make mistakes. That 'd be a moot point. US has tried its hardest to learn from them and tried to contain them, if they can't be fixed (Afghanistan is one area where this is actually happening now).

Anyone who wants to read a decent on book arguing the case for the US being a Liberal Empire should read Niall Ferguson's book "Colossus:The Rise and Fall of the American Empire".

Thanks for the book. Gotta remember reading this when I get the chance.

Personally I liked the book but didn't entirely agree with his hypothesis. The US is a hyper power with tinges of old school imperialistic traits. It's a new breed in the same way the Dutch Empire of finance was a new concept of Empire.

Allow me to respectfully disagree. My first post in this thread has reasons enough why.

Problem is that whether the US is an Empire or not Americans will never agree to this as they still hark back to either their birth in the bitter fight against an Empire or American exceptionalism, which quite frankly is a lesser form of Empire.

Any nation in this world considers themselves as superior. That's natural up to a point. The point being burning in fires people who are "untermenschen". I believe we are all the same, but some nations, like in people, are more clever or more strong than others. I really think that US is the perenial "eagle scout" if you will, the Gentle giant. Even if there were some things US much rather it didn't do, I think that every single passing year US really clean up their act. Besides, the cold war was a really ugly war, no matter how much people choose to forget it. It was the US that kept it from going hot, I think, seeing that US and allies won it.

So yeah the American Empire isn't the same as past Empires, in that it doesn't own other people's land or have an emperor, but it is in new ways particularly the amount of money invested around the world by Wall St etc.

I will call this a Superpower. "Empire" only with the metaphorical sense of the word. Quite frankly USA is too good to be an empire.
Too many times the word "evil" comes before "Empire" and most of those it was used correctly.

What I do agree with Mr Ferguson on is that I would rather America was as she is today than retreating back into her shell. The world needs a dominant hedgmon as to keep things in check. A Liberal American Empire is perhaps better for us all than a Communist Chinese hedgmon.

Agreed. Even if tomorrow USA decides to call it quits and just focus on its internal issues, someone will take their place. This is as inevitable as night following day. That's why I hope it never happens. I happened to grow in the era of NATO, the defeat of the "Evil Empire" (USSR fits the definition like a glove) and now the post 9/11 era. Wouldn't have it any other way, especially when considering those who fought and died to have this era of technological majesty, historical grandeur and world peace (as opposed to world war which was the alternative). However much I despise anyone having to fight in Afghanistan and or Iraq and wherever else is needed to weed out the terrorists, this, still, isn't WW3.

Exactly, but there is the problem. If America stays its current course, it is an evil, imperialist empire, but if it becomes isolationist again, it will be called evil every time something bad happens in the world and the US refuses to step in.

That's exactly right.

Of course to be great is to be disliked - ask Pericles. What you do or do not do will always be wrong - if you try to make Afghanistan better you are a blind heavy handed imperialist power with delusions your way is best, if you breeze in and out and just kill people who have an issue with your existence, your still just a blind amoral imperial power. Suck it up nobody is going to like you till the wheel turns and its all history.

Yep.

Ok, the attempts made by the USA to help one country by invading another have all failed, yes?

If by invading one country to help another you mean Vietnam, then yes, but the same does NOT hold true for all rest, say S. Korea and Kuwait. I could write them all but the list is long and you do get the point, I think.

Maybe this is a little blunt but what do you think they would have done if they succeeded? Ok, the government said they went in to promote peace and order and to help things out, but what would people say if they said 'we are going in their for oil, more land and sexy ladies'. Not saying they would. Just think

So the way to do it is go after the oil and womyn after having said in the beginning that "we go in to help the country".
FALSE.
U.S. does NOT control Iraq oil. Iraq government does. As for "sexy ladies" you speak of, in Iraq there were NO cases of rape or anything of a sort, (all those which were reported, their perps got what they deserved, regardless of the uniform they wore, and regrettably stained with their conduct). Compare this if you will with the organized rapes by Soviets when invading Germany in the final stages of WW2. (Let's not go into whether they were justified or were "simply" used as revenge -I am NOT in favor of an "eye for an eye").

This is really a question of semantics. Even when it was conquering the southwest from Mexico, annexing Hawaii and ruthlessly stamping out Philipino resistance the US studiously avoided imperialist terminology. And that continues. But what is certain is that in 2000 years when archaeologists are digging up US military bases all over the world, and finding textual references to 50,000 US troops in Germany and 30,000 in Japan 60+ years after the end of WW2, they will call it an Empire, and make little world maps marking it out in a color of their choosing. It may not be particularly accurate, but then again even the Roman empire wasn't the simple collection of conquests it's perceived as being today.

Thing is, those armies you speak of exist among a much larger national army of the country in which the bases reside in. We aren't archaeologists from the future, this is the present and we are living in it. I believe the enemy here, is the constant and unprovoked attacks on whatever is that US does, which, let's face it, are all coming from the same sources, no matter how much they try to cover their tracks. Communists and Nazi survivalists, Jihadis and Anarchists. Political professors the world over with axes to grind.
This is now. We are dealing with the problems that plague us at present. Those are who we must fight against, not some imaginary creations of some fringe culture that can be called collectively as "Anti-americanism".

The USA is an Empire of the Mind. It has practically leveled the whole world to be more or less like it in the last fifty years. It's yet another Pax Romana, but strangely without the need for direct domination that the prior one had.

I think it is more practical than that. Many nations post WW2 felt the commies breathing down their throats and joined in Alliance with the only force that could protect them. After winning the cold war, they all decided to keep things as they are, because last time an alliance was shattered (Entente) all hell broke loose, literally.

There is a difference between spreading your culture and influence for bad and doing for good.

I can hardly think that we are doing it for bad like we are an evil empire.

That's it, I think. I agree with you even if we both will be called simplistic minds, that fell over the "imperialistic designs of the Capitalistic America/"Great satan", as the Iran "republic" calls the U.S. (Absolutely NOT true)

Facts on the ground are somewhat different however. U.S. has created a peaceful co-existence of people and cultures that is being protected by US troops and allies (NATO in the case of Europe), whereas the adversary is long gone and hopefully forgotten sooner rather than later. Even as fighting continues against the terrorists, it seems that a new enemy has reared its ugly head, one that can and will consume us all if we don't dare to fight.

It is called "Climate Change". It happens, it's real, it's unavoidable. US has chosen to fight against it and with the legislature proposed it will cut 50% its emissions in 50 years. Hopefully by that time all the world will have joined in and new and more improved technologies will have made it possible for even further reductions in emissions as well as a possibility to restore some of the damage we have already done in our planet.

THIS is our challenge, this is our threat to fight against, this is where we must all gather, by the side of our American allies and, as in the past defeat the opponent who would destroy us. It isn't nuclear war or winter, it is climate change and a cloudless summer that we must prepare and defend against. That's our enemy, one we must overcome in order to survive.

[Captain Jin]

I agree with Keravnos.

What I see now, post-Soviet Union, is a lot of nations just blaming the the United States for things that took place. I love how everyone points at the CIA, as if it were some big ugly organization that acted on it's own. Like it carried out evil operation world wide for the benefit of the United States and only the United States. But yet, everyone likes to forget that all of our allies have intelligence agencies as well, and that in those times we worked jointly with a great deal of them. Especially the European intelligence communities as they were our closest ALLIES against the Soviet Union.

WOW. this seems to me incredibly obtuse.

Both the Philippines and Japan may be 'free' nations, but they have NO military to speak of, and they are both home to large US Military bases.

in military terms, they are effectively United States territory... and this same rule goes for many other countries.

You might want to educate yourself on that topic before you go rattling off about how obtuse it is. US troops in Japan are there at the invite of the Japanese government, are you really going to tell me one of the most economically powerful countries on Earth is a US territory? THat's rich. Why don't you look up the Japanese Defense Force while you're at it, it's one of the most advanced and well trained militaries in the region. It's a very sizeable force, good try. As for the Phillipines, there aren't any massive bases there, just small numbers of US troops (mostly air bases or Special forces) that are again, there by request. We assist the PHILMAR in their fight against Abu Sayyaf.

the same could be said of Australia and Canada.. their national armies are extremely small, and they are both host to large numbers of US troops and I would be very surprised if many of their military decisions didn't come directly from the Pentagon.

Man, where do you get this absurd information from? You accuse Keravnos of ignoring good posts and points by other members, he addressed them, but yours certainly is not a good one. Please name a large US military base in Canada. Please even find me normal unit deployments for US troops to Canada for even training. That's funny cause you won't find large numbers of US troops in Canada. The same goes for Australia. There are no large numbers of troops or US bases in Australia. MEUs do port calls in Australia and Marines conduct joint training with Australian troops, cause why? They are ALLIES!!! WHOA. Oh yeah, and what's also weird about that is there are AUSTRALIAN TROOPS IN AMERICA from time to time doing training in the same manner with us. Not to mention other international training events held by the US like operation Red Flag.

hmmm what about the US occupations of Haiti?

Everytime we 'occuppied' Haiti it was to restore order or was at the request of the President of Haiti. We never stay, simply restore order and leave, and then guess what they start killing each other again and their refugees come to the US.

Vietnam was largely the same, Afghanistan comparable. The US set up or supported many ''democratic'' regimes across the world, just as the USSR did with ''socialistic'' regime. More than often, as in the case of Korea and Vietnam, the ''democratic'' and ''socialistic'' leaders were just autocrats who eliminated any form of political rivalry.

You should probably read more about how Diem came to power in S. Vietnam. It had nothing to do with United States whatsoever. I swear, the fact that people keep claiming the US set up a puppet regime in S. Vietnam is so absurd. Go read Diem's biography, go read the Geneva conventions that was signed between the French and the Viet Mihn (Something S. Vietnam NEVER agreed too so wasn't even legally bound to), and the consequent withdrawl of French troops from Vietnam, coupled with Diem's corrupt elections etc. All before the US was ever involved. When we showed up we supported Diem because there wasn't much else to support. Had we won in Vietnam we wouldn't have stayed and made it a 51st state.

Again this talk of puppet states, and you have Western Germany who was a principal Ally of the US during the Cold War and are now one of it's biggest detractors (despite thousands of US troops in the country). That sounds like a puppet regime to me folks. Why did Germany get reunified? Cause the Soviet Union collapsed and broke down from external pressure. NATO, and principally the US's own efforts. But we're the bad guys somehow.... weird.

As for Korea, that was a UN mission, so was Somalia (despite everyone here refusing to actually read about it and figure that out). NATO members are not, nor have they ever been puppet regimes. NATO was set up in attempt to standardize a degree of training, ammunition type, magazine types, as well as some doctrinal information between countries all unified against a Soviet threat. No one was forced to join NATO, and in fact I see more bullying from the EU than there was in the past to get people to join NATO.

I won't say that people haven't suffered because of our actions, I won't say we've been the white knights at all times, or that we haven't at times acted out of our own interests. But you can't really make the argument that we're evil or anything of the sort. Japan and South Korea are two of the richest and most succesful countries on Earth, and enjoy a high quality of life, despite some of you having the idea that they are somehow a 'puppet' of our mighty Empire.

As for culture, I'm sick of hearing about that crap. You only have to blame yourselves for sucking up American culture at every turn. You go watch Hollywood movies, you buy American music, you play it in your clubs, you watch American television, you eat at American food franchises!! We don't have armed soldiers in your countries telling you to go watch the latest Lethal Weapon or any of that crap. You go of your own free will, thanks, but we're not to blame for US culture spreading throughout the world. As for being mad abotu MacDonald's or KFC spreading all over the place, again you can blame yourselves. I go into a MacDonald's in Europe and it is almost always PACKED with people. That must be because the CIA is forcing Europeans to eat these franchise foods. For God's sakes, someday some people are going to have to just accept the reality of the world and stop trying to blame all their woes on the United States. It might make you feel better, but in the end you're just chasing your own tale.

[dogukan]

Like I said, I am grateful that USA helped the government in 1947-1949 defeat the communist guerillas.
Even if the events which led to the dictatorship of 1967 and the dictatorship itself are debatable, it seems that the people who wanted to have both played into the US fear of communist encroachment.

You see, those dictatorships are all results of American intervening. Now you might be happy that commie guerillas were defeated, but I suppose not all of the citizens of Greece at that time was? This is after all relative depending on your political view. In my country a lot of intellectuals, students dissapeared because they were called "communist". And today, still when you talk to the old people they talk of communists as if they were people who would eat babies. And that sir is the result of pro-American government propoganda. And it costed a lot of lifes...and I do not think dictators are any better. Dictators were only there to make sure government will go pro-American....even if it gets aid, it DOES NOT HAVE HER FREE WILL. And when they act according to their free will they are labelled as "the axis of evil" by the whole world. Whether the dictator has good intentions or bad. At that moment people of the country suffer. Why? Embergoes, miltiary spendings, extreme police result with a passive people.
Those dictators who tried to get the string to their hands either turned into enemies of the world, assasinated, or replaced by another pro-American leader. Thats thank to CIA. And this is not something evil or magical, it's the logical thing the super-power does.
Latin Americans are most familiar with this...they changed a lot of dictators. Check it out, one of them was Batista of Cuba, now there is Castro who has been tried to be killed countless times....why? Why the hell does America intervene to Cuba? This is imperialism.....

Also Middle East is a good place to see the reuslts of what Americans did. Let's start with Checens...I bet they are/WERE getting their support from Americans in the name of freedom.(though I'd support this)...but the point there is not to help Checens, but rather annoying Russians.
Same applies to World War 2...as much as people fought to help the free world, the government's plans were more than that if I'm asked. First of all there'd be a BIIIIG power in Europe and could threat America. So are the Japanese.....they showed their true colors during the cold war which started during the last days of war. The search for German scientists and resources regarding nuclear power.
Anyways there is also Turkey which had seen 3 miltiary coups by pro-American army. Our army still is pro-American. During these coups the left in Turkey was crashed, religion and nationalism was encouraged. Those who fought for freedom against "imperialism" were executed/dissapeared/tortured by the fascists who were brought to there by Americans. And believe me Turkey is still suffering because of the losses of valuable people and ideological brainwashing of that day.

America by supporting radical Islam and fascist dictators tried to make teh "green line" against the Soviets. As you know fascism and radical Islam is totally against communism.
Iraq-a fascist dictator Saddam, with his country with lots of oil. (also see how Kurdish region of Iraq which is on oil fields today is the "safest")

Iran- had her first democratic election and brough Mosaddeq in 50s after bringing down the American puppet Shah. The first thing this guy did was to re-nationalize the oil fields of Iran and to give them to people. America did not like this of course and Mosaddeq was brought down soon after again...and who came back? Pro-American shah...after that point things got out of control and they had teh Islamic revolution. Which also "crashed" the left in Iran which was pretty much powerfull. Today there is no sign of left. There are those students who fight for their freedom, thats about it.

And then were have the Taliban in Afghanistan who were supported again to fight of communists. And well they evensay Osama was a CIA agent...but I doN't have any supporting evidence for that. It makes sense though.

Even so, the good that we have been blessed by NOT living in a communist country is too good to simply dismiss as "Imperialism". As I said, that cultural domination everyone's been speaking off, just isn't there. Only when combined with an occupying force and death threats can it work or will it. This just doesn't happen in NATO countries. Let's not mix NATO countries with what the Taliban are doing in the countries in which they have taken hold of.

Well again ideological relativity is making you think that way. I am personally not against a socialist state...at least a state with lots of social reforms and freedom of speech. The USSR of that time was also pretty much imperialistic in that sense. So blame Soviets, not leftern ideology people.

I brought in the NATO issue to show the American influence over the armies and intelligences of pro-western world. We are still trying to solve this Ergenekon case here....and look what they found out from the confessions of some officers from 50s to today.
Pretty much like the gladio, CIA formed these agents to create a chaos atmosphere in the country. These agents(such as Abdullah Çatlı, a famous agent) would kill political figures/professors from every ideology to create this chaos. And ın the chaos people would hope for NOTHING but the army to save them. Army that is pro-American. And there you have, we had 3 coups. A famous event was the massacare of Taksim in 1977 where around 30 workers/socialists were shot death from top of the most expensive hotel in Taksim square. Police isn't letting anyone in 1 May in Taksim Square since then. And that why there are fights with police every since then to get into Taksim.(I was among protesters this year)

That threat you speak of was REAL. I guess the real question is whether to disband NATO now that the communists are gone. Truth is that we can't. Remember what happened as ENTENTE fell into disuse after WW1? Hitler, that's what. Hitler and USSR, that Hitler used as an excuse to climb to power. Both of which would have been averted if an organisation as NATO had stood firm, defending what 's right, thwarting and destroying what's not.

Well it doesn't matter. American governement planted it's seeds to every country and invaded the economies already by using NATO and communist threat propoganda(right or not).

Alas, the best way to honor those dead is to make sure that whole generations won't have to die en masse, like those in WW1 and WW2 did. "Keeping the peace" is what USA has done incredibly well. Blaming USA and CIA for any local mishap is the norm all over the world. It isn't necessarily true, however.

Keeping the peace as long as the state obeys the interests. Blaming the CIA and USA is not a norm all over the world. The more you research, that comes out. It is true....and it's not something extra-ordinary. It's perfectly normal that CIA comes out of everything. Note that Turkish intelligence itself was formed by CIA..it's like a sub group of it. Now in case Turkey's interests for instance goes against American interests. Who are we going to believe for us to support our own will? To the army? To the intelligence? People would fear acting against these organizations. Now where is freedom in that case? If you are only free in under the limits the "imperialistic" power puts.

The old style imperialism costs a lot of money today...the case of Iraq is a solid proof of this. So was USSR intervention in Afghanistan.(YES SOVIETS TOO WERE IMPERIALIST, if I'm asked.)

In another thread, I posted against similar pre-conceptions that have grown into an "urban legend" status in my country, Greece. That somehow US created the coup in Cyprus that allowed the Turks to invade, whereas it was just an atrocious creation of the junta of Greece, along with Nationalists in Cyprus. It goes without saying that the fool in charge, aka dictator Ioannides tried to pin the blame on USA, but tell me, who wouldn't?

As far as I read, it's actually more of a result of British imperialism in Cyprus. Cyprus is strategically an important place...and Brits never wanted to lose it. So a chaos between Turks and Greeks would justify the British maintanence on the island....and it did. I'm not sure though but doesn't it make sense to you?

Didn't Saddam blame USA for leading him to believe that it was "Ok to invade Kuwait"? Who in their right mind would believe such a thing, either happening or being used to justify an unlawful invasion? Yet it did happen. Dictators Ioannides and Saddam both tried to blame US for supposedly allowing them to go on their own grandiose plans, and when those turned sour, pinned the blame on U.S.

Did he say that? Look I didn't know he said that and I believe him. Because his invasion of Kuwait gives casus belli to USA...and it makes perfect sense. Two birds with one stone. More dominance over oil rich Kuwait due to help...and oil fields of Iraq. Though the plan didN't work I guess so they came back saying there are Weapons of Mass Destruction even though there wasn't. However everyone has seem to forget that fact already and thiking it's because the war on terror. That how succesfull American propoganda is.

Unfortunately there are people who believe this to this very day.
No, I don't know why. Perhaps they have been indoctrinated to hate US since birth, while allowing for countries which WERE evil, aka Nazi Germany and USSR a free reign. It has to do something with being successful and a winer. That means despised and hated in this world.

Our media and government had been pro American for a while now. (note that USA supports AKP which is a traditional/conservative party(which is liberal in the economic sense, they already sold every income source of the nation to multinational corporations and ate the money that came from it)...does that make sense to you when they have declared war to "Islamic extremism"? )
The funding of army and ridicolous things such as religion has doubled...the funding of education lowered. People got poorer. The poorer and less educated the people, the easier it gets to domiante them with propoganda.

Tell me, who do you hang out with in real life? Don't you trust your friends to be people that actually like you rather than people who would spit you rather than even look at you? USA has naturally tried to be in good terms with people who would rather speak rather than shoot. Presently I don't believe that USA actively supports ANY dictatorial regime. Feel free to let me know of one if you can.

Of course it doesn't do it clearly...and they doN't do it as they did in the past. But check out how Venezuela became part of the "axis of evil" after nationalising her oil fields. And Chavez an evil man?
I just hope Obama will change this, I have high hopes with that guy. And I hope the guys who brought him there won't demand retun of favor.

As for dictators they placed, I think the major reason for that was the fear of those countries going Communist. One thing that we all fail to apprehend in its enormity right now, is the clear and present danger of this happening. It was a stated goal of USSR to promote and export revolution to any and all countries which would want it.

Well, this is true. The only difference is,I have a problem with having a fascist leader and rich people that owns 99% of the income of country. I prefer a socialist state.

As for Oil companies, do USA control Dutch Shell? British Petroleum either?

Yeah, lately multinational corporations are also getting into business. Politics is business and money you know. And well British too are in Iraq...who says they aren't imperialists? They just are not as much as the USA. Or well, what they have with ex-commonwealth is enough for them.

Nobody says that US didn't make mistakes. That 'd be a moot point. US has tried its hardest to learn from them and tried to contain them, if they can't be fixed (Afghanistan is one area where this is actually happening now).

You see, I do not blame people of America or their soldiers for ANYTHING. They are just doing their job, and are doing with good intentions. I'm just saying it'd be NAIVE to think that government's though are the same...or at least, it's not JUST about helping and policing the world.


ps:OOOPS answered one extra quote which wasn't in the discussion between us
ps2:has been a long writing, sorry for possible grammar/spelling mistakes

[Lysimachos11]

Allow me to consider your opinion with one word: "UNGRATEFULNESS".
We all here owe to the soldiers who fought in WW2. Even more so to those who came from overseas to help us get our countries back, get our continent back and even more so, get our freedoms back.
[...]
Again, last I checked, all states are fine by themselves. The point to be made is simple: All countries that allied with the US did so to fight against Communism. We won. Right now a new world is upon us with all the challenges and pitfalls that this means. Would you have us break the bonds that bind us and turn away from our allies and friends in order to be "free" and "independent". Freedom has been earned by the blood of all our WW2 troops, the GI's and the Marines who fought during WW2. "Independence" in modern world, by your definition would mean living in a N. Korea like state. Alliance on the other hand means the world we live in, one that you don't really like, I can tell.

You're starting with the assumption that American capitalist freedom is always better than socialist/communist freedom. You could turn things around: had the Soviets come and take over Europe they might have succeeded in creating a truly communist state (which would have been near utopian). Instead, the Americans worried with losing economical power in Europe prevented this and now have everyone drive to work 5 or 6 days a week from age 18 to 65. That leaves an average 5 years of American freedom of the adult 50 years you get from God.

I believe that U.S. has been a force for good in the world. U.S. is more powerful than you can possibly imagine, but you don't see any goose stepping automatons marching around in a display of "I OWN YOU" attitude that you would have had Nazis or Soviets won. What you do see is a proud country in alliance to most of the world, determined to destroy terrorism and promote tolerance AND what's the most important I think, lead the fight against global warming and the irrefutable consequences thereof.

That must be why the Americans have so much respect for other cultures, their proud goodness. When they invaded Iraq they took zero effort to protect irreplaceable cultural areas or musea. That is even worse than looking down upon another ones culture: its denying someone else even has one.

I totally disagree with you. You're also saying Greek Independence was preserved by the US, while in fact the US did not give a about Southern Europe. You should thank Churchill for his endless whining against the Americans to put a halt to Soviet expansion in Greece. 60% British vs 40% Soviet influence made the difference man, not the half-hearted American aid you speak of.

[Moorish guy]

hmmm what about the US occupations of Haiti?

[Nikitn]

USA may not have annexed many countries, but they actively tried to exert their influence all over the world from 1900-2009. This includes attacking countries, supporting mass murderers and supporting artificial states (S. Vietnam, almost everyone there were fighting in the Vietcong, or for N. Vietnam).

/Rant finished.

[ivan_the_terrible]

If we're going to debate semantics, consider the original Latin word: "Imperium".

It wasn't so concrete as the territory owned by a state, but rather the state's 'domination' of an area. It was quite a vague term, actually. I think you're only considering one manifestation of it.