Yes. Yes. It is not neccessarily bad. The Macedonian Empire of Alexander was good for Western civilization. So was the Roman Empire and the British Empire. But they were disasters to the defeated and dominated subject countries. It behooves us to consider that we are perceived very differently by our allies and our enemies. We should also consider that each of the aformentioned empires eventually fell because they overreached and arrogantly thought they were invincible, indestructible, and divinely guided. Nonetheless, we still maintain bases and large military forces in these foreign countries. It is obvious that we still influence their politics and dominate their military strategy. America conducts a kinder and gentler imperialism. Even our best allies correctly perceive the US as imperialist in nature. It does not mean we are evil, wrong, or even bad for business. We are none of those things. But it does mean that we have a policy of aggressively extending our authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic, military, and political hegemony over other nations. Which happens to be the textbook and dictionary definition of imperialism. Sure, the democrats are just like muslim terrorists. The biggest problem in this country is the misguided divisiveness between political parties. Some folk apparently imagine half of his fellow Americans are his foes instead of the real enemy. This attitude is misguided at best, despicable at worse, and utterly foolish.
Foolish, Ted Kennedy and others are foolish and not I. It takes a real fool to take sides against his country in time of war, give comfort to the enemy. I also think John McCain and Lindsey Graham are foolish for wanting to close Gitmo or send the Gitmo prisoners to their countries for prosecution. I have my ax with more than just some Democrats even though I think some of them are foolish. Yes, we have bases in some of those countries but I don't think we'd be there if those countries didn't want us there. Part of our problem is that we have to defend these countries along with the USA, Japan for instance, they don't have a military.
you count the military bases in defeated countries as "territorial aquisistion"? do you see the difference between the countries in western europe that we liberated in ww2 and the countries in eastern europe liberated by russia? what the russians did, thats imperialism, bub. we have "hegemony" over japan? germany? please. if you lessen the definition of imperialism to mean "we are a powerful country whose influence is strong like any other powerful country" then we are imperialist. but when people say it today it is stupid because it implies that we are colonizing the world or doing something other than being the least threatening superpower possible. i have a hard time calling us imperialists when we always return countries to the people after we defeat their bad leaders. many countries should beg us to invade. it would be best thing possible for them, because we leave a country better than we found it. why does it matter? who cares if the parties do not agree? you are playing the "i'm noble i am non-partisan" card a little too much. disagreement is great. yeah, we are imperialist, after pearl harbor i guess we decided we would be imperialist. if this is what you call imperialism then i hope we are the most imperialist country ever. you are just making up dumbass interpretations of the word imperialism.
No, those bases represent the fact that we go where we want to and leave forces where we want to. "aggressively extending our authority". And I didn't say this was bad, only that is can be interpreted as imperialism. I stated clearly that imperialism isn't a bad thing for us. You are making value judgements that I never claimed. Yes the Soviets were also imperialist. A prime example of hegemony. But consider this. The US has military forces of some type in 130 of the 200 or so countries on the planet. Most are there with the blessing of the country, a few are not, but can't you see that this global military influence is also widely acknowledged as imperialism? Does that make it "bad"? No. It is possible to be imperialist and still be benevolent, as were the Roman and British empires. You are making a mistake to equate imperialism with tyranny. And we do NOT always return countries we have taken. Hawaii for example was a sovereign country we eliminated and then kept the land. We have also kept Puerto Rico and other Spanish-American War acquisitions, not to mention at least seven states captured from Mexico. We have kept most of the Pacific islands we conquered in WWII. We gave back the Phillipines and the Canal Zone only grudgingly, and guess what . . . kept military bases there afterwards anyway. You should watch a Peter Sellers movie called "The Mouse that Roared". That is the plot. Of course, that is just a funny movie. In reality, we invaded Mexico in 1847 without provocation, occupied their capital, and didn't leave until they gave up California, Nevada, Utah, Arizaona, New Mexico to us and relinquished their claim to Texas. "territorial aquisition", you know. Obviously I needn't mention the Sioux Nation, the Apache, the Choctaw, etc. No it happened a century before that. Manifest Destiny itself is an imperialist doctrine. Was this bad for us? Hell, no! Was it imperialist? Of course it was. Yet, I am citing dictionary definitions and historical examples, while you are simply trying to discredit me. You are just making dumbass assumptions that I think imperialism is "bad". I don't and have already explained it.
red, its quite obvious the term imperialism carries with it a negative connotation, especially in today's use. the fact that you quite clearly know the diffference between the soviets/US yet pretend they are the same thing is misguided at best.
People can apply any connotations they want to. It doesn't change the facts, tirk. I went out of my way several times to point out that imperialism isn't automatically bad. But to deny its very existence is delusive and dangerous. Failure to acknowledge and understand how our enemies and allies see us puts us in a disadvantageous position. I also never said the US and the USSR "are the same thing", you said it. What I said was, yes, the Soviets were also imperialistic, in their own blundering way. It is quite impossible to be a superpower without being imperialistic, IMO.
right, you are talking manifest destiny and native americans. we are trying to talk contemporary policy. in these dicussions, when people use the word imperialism to describe us, they are using it in the context of our invasion of iraq, as if we want oil or whatever and we go around taking what we want. i understand that you are stretching the word so much to the point that calling a country is imperialist is equivalent to calling it a superpower, which is a pointless definition. i think it is a waste of time to use definitions differently than everyone else. most people would not use the word imperialist to describe our response to pearl harbor. but you are more intersted in silly word definitions than efficient communication, which requires that we all use the same meanings for words.
I think most people think of us in historic terms. We didn't start this policy with Iraq. What the hell do you think dictionaries are for? It is you that is stretching definitions to meet your personal interpretations. I am using proper definitions that are widely agreed upon. :dis: People don't. I never mentioned Pearl Harbor, you did. I clearly pointed out that I was speaking of our invasion of Mexico as the beginning of imperialist behavior. You've quarreled with every poster in FSA and now you are quarreling with yourself! :lol: Pure martin gobbledegook. I spoke very clearly and plainly and used widely published references. You just don't like it because you can't refute it. :grin:
i am referring to this: if you consider ww2 to be imperialist activity on our part, and you said you do, then you have stretched the definition to ridiculous lengths. i guess we will have to disagree on this, but i think for the purposes of conversation, you might want to remind people you have a red-specific definition for the word imperialism. remind people that you think america was imperialist in ww2 when we liberated europe and defended the world from aggression. i guess that is true if you use the red55 word usage.
Sourdough and I were discussing post-war occupations. And yes our occupations of Japan and Germany can easily be interpreted as imperialism. And as I have pointed out insistently and you have ignored, imperialism can be a very good thing! The liberation of Europe was imperialism at its finest. No, the colonization of North America by the British Empire was even better. Which is to say, the textbook specimen, the historic example, and the dictionary definition. At least I can cite some sources and examples to illustrate my viewpoints. Only in martinworld is such corroboration considered to be odd. However, it is good that we can disagree. Debates are an extreme bore if everyone is just slapping each other on the back.
