• 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

Jack Hays said:
For the record, Lockerbie was later. Reagan bombed Libya because of a bombing of a disco in Berlin where US servicemen were killed. That was traced to Libyans.
Click to expand...

Right you are Jack. Well, that was off the top of my head. I didn't google a thing.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I was making fun of the fact that he listed Libya twice in his post. We invaded Libya, Afghanistan and Libya... ;)
Click to expand...

OK. Guess I missed that. :3oops: Oh well. In my defense, awfully subtle humor.
 
eohrnberger said:
Right you are Jack. Well, that was off the top of my head. I didn't google a thing.
Click to expand...

I was serving abroad at the time. We locked down after the USAF bombing of Libya in case there were demos or retaliation.
 
Jack Hays said:
I was serving abroad at the time. We locked down after the USAF bombing of Libya in case there were demos or retaliation.
Click to expand...

I appreciate and thank you for your service, sir.
 
Lutherf said:
I'm just thinking that it would be a pretty crappy empire if the Imperialists neither kept what they invaded nor profited by pillaging thier conquests.
Click to expand...

There are many forms of imperialism, many forms of conquest, and many ways of profiting from that conquest. As an European representative of the largest old-fashioned empire the world has known, let me tell you that our empire was not gained by means of military conquest, but it was no less an empire, and it was no less exploitative.
 
ColdSteel said:
Is america a modern imperialistic power?
Click to expand...

Sort of. Hegemon might be a better term. Certainly if we are an Empire we are of a kind not seen before.
 
Leo said:
There are many forms of imperialism, many forms of conquest, and many ways of profiting from that conquest. As an European representative of the largest old-fashioned empire the world has known, let me tell you that our empire was not gained by means of military conquest, but it was no less an empire, and it was no less exploitative.
Click to expand...

.....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.
 
Leo said:
There are many forms of imperialism, many forms of conquest, and many ways of profiting from that conquest. As an European representative of the largest old-fashioned empire the world has known, let me tell you that our empire was not gained by means of military conquest, but it was no less an empire, and it was no less exploitative.
Click to expand...

cpwill said:
.....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.
Click to expand...

Britannia ruled the waves. And as for conventional military force, here's one example. French Colonel Marchand came overland to the upper Nile from Brazzaville (a very tough trip) with 200 men. Lord Kitchener sailed up the Nile from Cairo with 20,000 Queens' African Rifles. They met at Fashoda, and the upper Nile was British thereafter.
 
ColdSteel said:
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.
Click to expand...

We're not a classic imperialistic or Empire type of country from historic comparisons. We don't conquer and annex other lands, though we do secure strategic interests by interfering with other countries politics and national agreements, trade pacts, etc.

Geopolitical strategies are an unfortunate necessity in the modern world of global trading and markets. The last few, large island states of communism, Russia and China had to change their political idealism to survive. So, we're not purposely being evil greedy, it's just a national priority to secure our countries best interests, though we do go over board with our zeal in acquiring success.
 
grip said:
We're not a classic imperialistic or Empire type of country from historic comparisons. We don't conquer and annex other lands, though we do secure strategic interests by interfering with other countries politics and national agreements, trade pacts, etc.
Click to expand...

As long as your rivals keep on playing the classical imperialistic empire's, and as long as you are willing to trade rather than conquer classically, considering the alternatives, I think this is the best option. Does it makes you want to thank Russia and China for helping you be perceived as better than them in the world?
 
DDD said:
As long as your rivals keep on playing the classical imperialistic empire's, and as long as you are willing to trade rather than conquer classically, considering the alternatives, I think this is the best option. Does it makes you want to thank Russia and China for helping you be perceived as better than them in the world?
Click to expand...

Better than Russia and China or just more effective at influencing and dominating?
 
grip said:
Better than Russia and China or just more effective at influencing and dominating?
Click to expand...

You sure come out better than Russian style imperialism that involves either assimilation or systematic ethnic cleansing.
 
DDD said:
You sure come out better than Russian style imperialism that involves either assimilation or systematic ethnic cleansing.
Click to expand...

American history is full of atrocities with Native American slaughtering and slavery. We're no better than anyone else, just better resources, organization and learning from mistakes. Our flexible Constitution, melting pot culture and rule of law have helped our society, along with roots in traditional values, but that is all changing now.
 
grip said:
American history is full of atrocities with Native American slaughtering and slavery. We're no better than anyone else, just better resources, organization and learning from mistakes. Our flexible Constitution, melting pot culture and rule of law have helped our society, along with roots in traditional values, but that is all changing now.
Click to expand...

Just watch out how rival empire's operate and learn from their mistakes. At the same time I cannot help but think that those idiots sure are helping you be perceived as a better empire.

So, every now and then you should thank your rivals for being bullies and evil. ;) After all due to their darkness you seem more bright.
 
DDD said:
Just watch out how rival empire's operate and learn from their mistakes. At the same time I cannot help but think that those idiots sure are helping you be perceived as a better empire.

So, every now and then you should thank your rivals for being bullies and evil. ;) After all due to their darkness you seem more bright.
Click to expand...


Rivals? Where are the ones who rivaled us?
 
grip said:
Rivals? Where are the ones who rivaled us?
Click to expand...

I mean Russia and China rivals still operate the classical way, and under such operations what you do appears better. So I was sarcastically telling you to thank them for that, that is all.
 
DDD said:
I mean Russia and China rivals still operate the classical way, and under such operations what you do appears better. So I was sarcastically telling you to thank them for that, that is all.
Click to expand...

I knew what you meant. ;)
 
ColdSteel said:
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.
Click to expand...

I say yes, but perhaps not in the traditional use of the word. We don't create new states out of the countries we defeat, but we do put military bases in them and maintain a great deal of influence.
 
cpwill said:
.....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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jack Hays said:
Britannia ruled the waves. And as for conventional military force, here's one example. French Colonel Marchand came overland to the upper Nile from Brazzaville (a very tough trip) with 200 men. Lord Kitchener sailed up the Nile from Cairo with 20,000 Queens' African Rifles. They met at Fashoda, and the upper Nile was British thereafter.
Click to expand...

Just so, but what does that tell us - other than the fact that, all other things being equal - 20,000 men will very likely defeat 200 men?
 
Veni, Vidi, Vici
 
Leo said:
Just so, but what does that tell us - other than the fact that, all other things being equal - 20,000 men will very likely defeat 200 men?
Click to expand...

Britain's imperial rise included a strong military conquest component.
 
Lutherf said:
How many have we kept?
Click to expand...

Kept?? One needn't "keep" the real estate in order to be an imperialist power. By definition the US is MOST CERTAINLY an imperialistic power, all the while provoking countries and then wringing our hands when they respond in kind.

im·pe·ri·al·ism
imˈpi(ə)rēəˌlizəm/
noun
a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom