• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Imperialistic America

As a courtesy I followed and would have to join to read the entire article, so only read the first page. The CIA, as you know so well, is not famous for truth so the title of the article is an oxymoron in itself. Another note, the CFR is a Rockefeller, the same Rockefeller from United Fruit Corp., funded think tank, not a govermental organization. But using a working plantation owner in a banana Republic as a reference to respectability and truth is willfully deceptive.

Spot on bro!
 
By definition, to be an imperial power it would need colonies.

The US is a former colony and is by it`s history of being that and bringing down some of the greatest imperial powers a antiimperialist country.

Wrong again. All you need to do is extend your influence over other countries, they do not need to, though they could be, ones colonies.


n colonialism, colonial power.
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the policy and practice of a power in extending control over weaker peoples or areas. Also called: imperialism
 
Is america a modern imperialistic power? We have invade like 22 different country's in the last 20 years, and while there have been complaints and retaliation, we still do it.

No. American Imperialism had a soft (and late) start when we fired a cannon off the coast of Japan and shrilly demanded that they have normal economic and diplomatic relations with us so that we could expand our trans-national trading pool to include East Asia. At our height we accepted the Philippines from Spain as part of the treaty that came from driving them out of western hemisphere. After a decade or two we discovered that imperialism was less economically efficient than an alliance and were among the first to abandon our imperialist non-conquests.

The idea that America is some kind of covert imperialist is a ridiculous invention of the global press. On scale, we're one of the least imperialist countries that has ever existed.
 
Last edited:
.....I have to challenge that. Britains' Empire may have expanded in the famous "fit of absence of mind", but the idea that it wasn't linked to military dominance of the space is... from what I understand, simply not tenable. Britain didn't pick up India or South Africa because they came in and asked pretty-please.

Doesn't come in a box with ribbons. British rule in India was fairly nebulous for the most of their presence there and shared with others European powers until a relatively late period. Similar to how territories that had become provinces by the late Roman Imperial Period were allies or "vassal states" during the Roman Republic (with their own governments and military force in addition to the Roman Legion presence). Until the mid-late 19th century, there were entire empires in the sub-continent still under the rule of native Indian Rajahs. The Duke of Wellington fought multiple campaigns against such empires who were encroaching on territories where the British administered society directly or a least enjoyed a great deal of indirect economic influence, such as the Maratha Empire.

On the other hand, until the late 19th century, it isn't clear that most Indians strongly resented the British presence (at least not in the conventional sense) because as far as most of them were concerned the British and their Queen were just another Rajah vying for influence in the sub-continent.
 
To be fair annexation doesn't really follow the modern principles of imperialism. It's better defined as domination through political, economic, and/or military means.

Yeah, that's the rationale leftists use when countries decide to abandon a form of government that doesn't work and establish a new one. 'Just domination by the damned Americans' is the popular left wing refrain. After all, there has to be some response to the undeniable fact that we get out of those countries at the first available opportunity.
 
I didn't say Great Britain did not enjoy military (particularly naval) dominance, but I said that its colonial possessions were not gained by means of military invasion. I.e: the British armed forces did not defeat the Indian armed forces, the African armed forces, the American armed forces, the Malay armed forces, or the Australian armed forces, in order to vanquish and occupy those territories. That the British used their military might to ward of other colonial powers, primarily the French, the Spanish, and the Dutch, is inarguable, but that is not to what I referred.

I do not doubt you have read your history of the British empire, and know that India, for example, was breached (in the trading sense) by the East India Company, and it took from 1601 to 1833 for it to develop governing influence in India, which was ended in 1858 by the British government stepping in to stop the violent excesses of the company. This is very far from a military conquest and occupation.

That the colonisation of India, Malaya, America, Australia, and parts of Africa was exploitative is not in question either, my point devolves about the modus operandi of gaining these overseas possessions. I am not an apologist for any form of imperialism.

You are correct that the British military generally followed British merchants, but the idea that they did not defeat local armed forces in order to gain and secure territory is flatly not true. Typically the expansion in India, for example, was marked by taking advantage of chaos during a period of succession in neighboring areas to move in and defeat often divided forces. Similarly in America, the British absolutely fought and defeated the local Natives in pitched and quite bloody conflict.

Boer War sound familiar at all? Battle of Omdurman? Sepoy Rebellion? Opium War? The Australian Aborigines didn't enter into a co-op with you, they were driven out.

The British Empire was the most liberal of the Classic Empires, certainly. But there is a reason that the old saying that "Whatever happens, We have got, The Maxim Gun, and they have not" is a British one.
 
Are we imperialist country? Absolutely. Do we practice traditional imperialism? No. Its a neo-imperialism.
 
Yeah, that's the rationale leftists use when countries decide to abandon a form of government that doesn't work and establish a new one. 'Just domination by the damned Americans' is the popular left wing refrain. After all, there has to be some response to the undeniable fact that we get out of those countries at the first available opportunity.

You're not very familiar with modern studies of foreign affairs are you? Or for that matter that of the last 200 years?
 
Is america a modern imperialistic power? We have invade like 22 different country's in the last 20 years, and while there have been complaints and retaliation, we still do it.
It all depends how you define things.
 
Is america a modern imperialistic power? We have invade like 22 different country's in the last 20 years, and while there have been complaints and retaliation, we still do it.

We must be the worst imperialistic country in the world to have ever existed. We still have 50 states and last I checked.. We invade, then give countries back to the people in good faith that they will take control. Imperialistic countries have never done that in world history. At least not before completely controlling them for long periods of time and claiming them as their territory.
 
You're not very familiar with modern studies of foreign affairs are you? Or for that matter that of the last 200 years?

I think its more the fact that I don't swallow the swill provided by leftist 'authorities' on foreign affairs. Unlike you, apparently. If I hated my country and everything it does as much as you do, I'd leave. I'm sure your attitude about the United States would make you incredibly popular in places like Russia or North Korea or Iran or ....well, you name any anti-American despotic regime and they'd love you.

Let me know if you need any help packing.
 
We must be the worst imperialistic country in the world to have ever existed. We still have 50 states and last I checked.. We invade, then give countries back to the people in good faith that they will take control. Imperialistic countries have never done that in world history. At least not before completely controlling them for long periods of time and claiming them as their territory.

YOu only have to check on who's calling us Imperialists. They're the US bashers, and you can find them anywhere. Especially here.
 
Are we imperialist country? Absolutely. Do we practice traditional imperialism? No. Its a neo-imperialism.

another pet phrase of the left - neo-Imperialism. It's one they invented when they realized that the Imperialist label was a crock of ****.
 
YOu only have to check on who's calling us Imperialists. They're the US bashers, and you can find them anywhere. Especially here.

Well, there are certainly no shortage of things the US could and should be criticized for. I could probably write a book that would dwarf war and peace on the number of things the US gets wrong as well as the many problems that exist in American culture. But overall, the US is at best benign, only because it is so terrible at being an imperialist power as many claim it to be.
 
You are correct that the British military generally followed British merchants, but the idea that they did not defeat local armed forces in order to gain and secure territory is flatly not true. Typically the expansion in India, for example, was marked by taking advantage of chaos during a period of succession in neighboring areas to move in and defeat often divided forces. Similarly in America, the British absolutely fought and defeated the local Natives in pitched and quite bloody conflict.

Boer War sound familiar at all? Battle of Omdurman? Sepoy Rebellion? Opium War? The Australian Aborigines didn't enter into a co-op with you, they were driven out.

The British Empire was the most liberal of the Classic Empires, certainly. But there is a reason that the old saying that "Whatever happens, We have got, The Maxim Gun, and they have not" is a British one.

Sorry CP, but if you are looking for a nationalistic argument on this, you won't be getting one from me. I am not a supporter of imperialism in any of its forms, and I am not in the process of whitewashing the British Empire. I was merely stating a fairly well known fact that Britain's empire started life as a trading entity, which was duly shorn up in the course of time by means of a considerable military. I was not drawing favourable or unfavourable comparisons with any other empires (including yours). :)
 
Back
Top Bottom