Why isn't the US an Imperial Power?

[Alcibiades429]

And I don't understand what's wrong with neoconservatism's foreign policy. I am a democrat, but as far as foreign policy is concerned I really don't understand whats so bad about the Bush Doctrine, if competently preformed.

Is being an Imperial power bad for the economy? Was it beneficial for the UK when they had an Empire?

It just doesn't make any sense to me. Even if you were against imperialism for idealistic reasons, it doesn't matter. It's almost a law of nature that great nations will always exploit weak nations, if its not your country it will be someone else.

Don't like the idea of a foreign occupation of Iraq? If it's not America it would be Iran. IF we are not in Africa building infurstructure China will. '

And almost all previous imperial actions by the US have been extremely humanitarian compared to actions by China and the USSR. We are not only the lesser of the two evils, but we can also benefit from the exploitation of resources of lesser countries like Iraq. Which amazingly we haven't done.


Whats the point of spending 5 times what the world spends on its military if we are not going to use it effectively?

[Azog 150]

The USA is an imperial power, just not a colonial one.


Nowadays there isn't any need for colonies when you can just have a state-backed corporation do all the exploiting for you without any of the administrative difficulties of colonialism. Likewise the USA has many hundreds of military bases scattered right across the world and has shown on countless occasions that its more then willing to militarily or covertly intervene in a country, even going as far as regime change, if that country opposes US interests or steps out of line. It has also shown (more so in the past but still now to some extent) that it is willing to back regimes that directly contradict all US principles of freedom and democracy if it ties in with the USA's strategic or economic interests.



Not to mention that in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries the USA was a colonial power in the same vain as European powers of the time.

[Condottiere 40K]

The British Empire was based on the concept that it had to pay for itself,and the (financial) benefits would eventually converge back to Great Britain; in the American case, the benefits seem to flow to Corporations that are nominally American.

[Alcibiades429]

The British Empire was based on the concept that it had to pay for itself,and the (financial) benefits would eventually converge back to Great Britain; in the American case, the benefits seem to flow to Corporations that are nominally American.

The USA is an imperial power, just not a colonial one.

I see, that actually seems smarter then colonialism

[6644kp]

Its cos no country has the guts anymore to go to a foreign land, exterminate the natives and populate it with their own.

[Caelius]

Remember what Winston Churchill said, "The Empires of the future are Empires of the mind".

Churchill was wrong.

Capitalism is not a zero-sum game.

Capitalism isn't. But Geopolitics is.

For the exploitation part I will safely assume you are a sociopath and not try to argue morals with someone who clerly has none

That's rich. Why are you even attempting to do something as futile as attach morality to concepts like Geopolitics and Realpolitik to begin with?

unilaterally stealing from other countries is impossible.

?

No it's not. It's being done even as I type this, and is an accepted norm.

No country is actually strong enough to do that kind of stealing.

There are plenty that are strong enough to do so, and which carry such acts out all the time.

Your example using Somalia isn't accurate.

Although I must laugh at this.

Why? It's true.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Churchill was wrong.

That's rich. Why are you even attempting to do something as futile as attach morality to concepts like Geopolitics and Realpolitik to begin with?

Because empathy is a major factor in decision making by most actors, particularly the strongest ones, and is the strongest force in the world today. Why do you think the USA pulled out of a war it was winning and let Vietnam become communist? Why did the USSR collapse? What is causing terrorism in Isreal and against the USA? What caused the Libyan civil war and other events of the Arab Spring? You can't have a valid model of international relations without taking into account public opinion. Ignoring real factors that influence decision making means it will not be accurate.

This is why empires of the future are empires of the mind. If an actor has the support of its own people, those it is acting upon, and anyone who could influence it, it is a lot more powerful than any amount of military spending will make it. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was certainly not opposed by most Iraqis, and supported by most of them a lot of the time. Compare that to the Nazi invasion of Yugoslavia back in WWII, when the army that conquered Europe was defeated by civilians in conventional symmetric warfare. Or anywhere in the East, where similar scale civilian uprisings happened every couple of months but unfortunately gave no lasting success.

But empathy is most important because it should determine how you think your own government should act. Or would you not mind it carrying out the holocaust in your name?

Capitalism isn't. But Geopolitics is.

My point is a developed country would lose out when stealing a hostile country's natural resources. It would cost more to extract and steal whatever natural resources Afghanistan has than they are worth, because the populace would suddenly become extremely hostile. Both actors would lose out.

If you mean it's a zero-sum game when the USA gains security, while the Taliban lose pretty much everything, well then I agree with you, and in many instances international relations are a zero-sum game; but not in examples the OP is suggesting.

No it's not. It's being done even as I type this, and is an accepted norm.

If you mean enticing individuals and companies to voluntarily benefit your country while benfiting themselves, I don't see that as stealing from other countries that could have had them.

If you mean forcefully securing wealth from another country, it doesn't happen outside of crazy developing countries.

There are plenty that are strong enough to do so, and which carry such acts out all the time.

Your example using Somalia isn't accurate.

My example using Somalia is more comparable to a developed country stealing a developing country's natural resources by force than two bannana dictatorships at each other's throats.

Why? It's true.

C'mon Caelius, not long ago you were making great posts. I assume you are posting petty drive-by drivel because of your perception of my political beliefs, but I assure you I am not the naive bleeding heart communist you accuse me of being.

The other superpowers in history could largely invade other nations on the pretense "Rome is awesome! USSR is great!", and the US simply cannot, and because of this it is on a higher moral level.

Rome and the USSR genuinely thought they bringing civilisation and countless benefits to the people of Gaul and Eastern Europe. So did Britain, the Ottomans and nowadays, so does the USA.

[Admiral Piett]

Churchill was wrong.



Capitalism isn't. But Geopolitics is.





That's rich. Why are you even attempting to do something as futile as attach morality to concepts like Geopolitics and Realpolitik to begin with?



?

No it's not. It's being done even as I type this, and is an accepted norm.



There are plenty that are strong enough to do so, and which carry such acts out all the time.

Your example using Somalia isn't accurate.



Why? It's true.

When was he talking about realpolitik?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

What you're arguing actually has nothing to do with neoconservative foreign policy.

Remember what Winston Churchill said, "The Empires of the future are Empires of the mind". Classic empires don't exist any more. Capitalism is not a zero-sum game. You can't benefit at someone else's expense. Either all parties benefit or they all suffer.

Attacking morally abhorrent dictatorships is justified most of the time, and the USA is probably justified when it does it to protect its economic interests abroad. For the exploitation part I will safely assume you are a sociopath and not try to argue morals with someone who clerly has none: unilaterally stealing from other countries is impossible. No country is actually strong enough to do that kind of stealing. Somalia is a murderous anarchy in a genocidal civil war, and no country can even exploit their exclusive economic zone.

And almost all previous imperial actions by the US have been extremely humanitarian compared to actions by China and the USSR.

Although I must laugh at this.

[Dr. Croccer]

Why? It's true.

The authoritarian dictators supported throughout the Third World by the US during the Cold War were hardly any better than those by the USSR or China.

[Mr. Scott]

The authoritarian dictators supported throughout the Third World by the US during the Cold War were hardly any better than those by the USSR or China.

Indeed. But when possible, the US does support democracy. Look at Western Europe and South Korea and Japan.

It's the one aspect of the American empire that gives it a bit of a better moral standing than most empires of history.

[Azog 150]

Indeed. But when possible, the US does support democracy. Look at Western Europe and South Korea and Japan.

Western Europe and South Korea are democratic now, but when they first came under the US umbrella Spain was still run by a fascist dictator and South Korea was also a brutal dictatorship right up until 1989.

Not counting times when the USA has actually toppled democracies to be replaced by pro-US dictators (Nicaragua and Iran being the too most prominent examples- and we are still feeling the effects of these actions today)

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the USA hasn't been quite so bad in this respect as it has had more freedom to pick and choose its allies, but it still goes on to some extent.

It's the one aspect of the American empire that gives it a bit of a better moral standing than most empires of history.

Other Empires have also sought to justify their existence through terminology such as 'freedom and democracy'. The Victorian British Empire for example tried to justify its expansion and give itself 'moral standing' in terms of spreading liberty, civilisation and Christian values

[Mr. Scott]

Western Europe and South Korea are democratic now, but when they first came under the US umbrella Spain was still run by a fascist dictator and South Korea was also a brutal dictatorship right up until 1989.

Not counting times when the USA has actually toppled democracies to be replaced by pro-US dictators (Nicaragua and Iran being the too most prominent examples- and we are still feeling the effects of these actions today)

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the USA hasn't been quite so bad in this respect as it has had more freedom to pick and choose its allies, but it still goes on to some extent.



Other Empires have also sought to justify their existence through terminology such as 'freedom and democracy'. The Victorian British Empire for example tried to justify its expansion and give itself 'moral standing' in terms of spreading liberty, civilisation and Christian values

Spain was hardly under the "American sphere". Franco did his own thing and he was not put in power by the US.

South Korea, upon its formation, was indeed to backward and susceptible to communism to be given a democracy. Which is why it wasn't... at first. But because of its resulting extreme economic linkage to the US (which resulted in its economic boom), it became one.

[Ishoss]

Spain was hardly under the "American sphere". Franco did his own thing and he was not put in power by the US.

Like every other capitalist country USA was pretty cordial with Franco. Their corporations helped out a big deal. Ford donated outrageous amount of jeeps and it was all fuelled by an american oil company (don't remember which one). To add on top of this, trading with Republican Spain was pretty much banned. According to international law it should have been the other way around - trade with legal government should have persisted, while trade with rebels were technially banned.

But then again, 'everyone' important did it. And it was the '30s. People were mad in the '30s.

As for your last post (and edit):

This isn't 100 A.D. We have different moral standards. Even since the '40s our moral standards have changed immensely. We can only judge our own time based on it's own backdrop, and we can't judge other eras based on this ages backdrop.

[Caelius]

The authoritarian dictators supported throughout the Third World by the US during the Cold War were hardly any better than those by the USSR or China.

Some of them were, some of them weren't, some of them even turned their countries out for the better even if they were harsh.

Bringing them up as a rhetorical red herring (because I knew someone was) doesn't white wash the numerous atrocities the USSR and China are responsible for.

Or the fact that some of their proxies and cronies are still around doing to this day. From Cuba, Tibet, Belarus, N. Korea, and Burma.

I do believe there's a thread around here that statistically points out that nearly 150 million people died as a direct result of Communism in the 20th Century alone.

To say the least of the countless more who were oppressed, starved, or displaced.

Nothing the US ever did in the entirety of its foreign policy during the Cold War even comes close to competing with that.

[Dr. Croccer]

Indeed. But when possible, the US does support democracy. Look at Western Europe and South Korea and Japan.

No, it didn't. Western Europe was already democratic and stable before WW2 and there was no threat of them becoming communist. They just took up the places they had and the US was obviously glad with having this bulwark. Japan was under military occupation until it was certain that it could stand on its own feet without turning towards reactionism or communism. And South Korea wasn't democratic. Syngman Rhee's rule was practically a one-party state in which the opposition was oppressed. He was eventually deposed by popular demand and was forced to flee to America.

The US expressly supported anti-communist strongmen. Rarely was principle an issue, what mattered was preventing communism (or whatever was considered to be it) from gaining a foothold, with all means necessary.

It's the one aspect of the American empire that gives it a bit of a better moral standing than most empires of history.

Hardly, and one shouldn't be of the opinion that that somehow morally cancels out the other and more numerous dubious activities which cost the lives of millions.

Some of them were, some of them weren't, some of them even turned their countries out for the better even if they were harsh.

Bringing them up as a rhetorical red herring (because I knew someone was) doesn't white wash the numerous atrocities the USSR and China are responsible for.

Or the fact that some of their proxies and cronies are still around doing to this day. From Cuba, Tibet, Belarus, N. Korea, and BurmaI do believe there's a thread around here that statistically points out that nearly 150 million people died as a direct result of Communism in the 20th Century alone.

That wasn't the point though, you've just made a red herring yourself. The argument wasn't ''which ideology killed the most'', but which ''empire'' did.

[Babur]

Indeed. But when possible, the US does support democracy. Look at Western Europe and South Korea and Japan.

It's the one aspect of the American empire that gives it a bit of a better moral standing than most empires of history.

The US didn't support democracy in Iran though, it had a choice as well.

[Nevins]

The US didn't support democracy in Iran though, it had a choice as well.

Because Britain asked pretty please could we do so.

[Azog 150]

Because Britain asked pretty please could we do so.

Britain certainly played a strong role in overthrowing the regime (and on that note its worth pointing out the USA hasn't been the worlds only imperialistic power post-WW2), but don't be so daft as to think the USA wasn't unhappy with the democratic governments plans to nationalise the oil industry and jumping at the opportunity to stop it. Britain asked plenty of other things of the USA in the Cold War that weren't granted. The CIA headed the operation (It was getting good at orchestrating the downfall of regimes by this point) and the USA gave it its full backing. It could just as easily have turned around and said 'no' like it did on numerous other occasions.

[Babur]

Because Britain asked pretty please could we do so.

they asked many times during the Truman administration but he was more sympathetic to Mossadegh.