It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It's Imperialism

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Why are people so afraid of America as an imperialistic empire? Yes, this is imperialism. Is it beneficial to humanity in general? Is the intentions of The AmeREICHan Empire for an overall better? What direction is this Empire moving in? These are the questions that are needed to be answered and not if it is or not.

There should be no argument that the top 3 nation leaders of the world are Empires and there also is NO argument that AmeREICHa is a monopolized corperate capitolism, hence it is imperialism. To me, in definition, these are facts. To many, in rhetoric, these are my personal opinions; take what I say as you will cause you are entitled to your opinions aswell.




posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
But, If there were Roman Troops in Egypt, Who Ruled there? When Nazi Germandy had troops in France, Denmark, Who Ruled? In ancient Greece when Aggamenon had troops in Sparta, Who Ruled? When The Soviet Union had troops in Poland, Who Ruled?

Great Point!



We must not forget that this form, of putting Troops in foreign Lands is a form of Hard Imperialism - but there is also a form of Soft Imperialism, which is Very Important for the Fortification of the Empire, and I quote:

The “hard imperialism” of armies, conquest and war had to be complimented with “soft imperialism”, or psychological, political and cultural attempts not necessarily to win territory and gain power, but to keep it. Cultural and lifestyle export was also considered part of this softer imperialism.

In one sentance: the hearts and minds of people throughout the empire also needs to be won over. And American Culture, in many aspects of its Cultural Praise in Self-Glorification of the so-called American Dream, attracts People from all over the Globe, just as Roman Empire once did, with quotes like: "Every Road Leads to Rome."

Now lets quote Dr Christopher Kelly, Lecturer in Classics, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge:

“What's always important to remember about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, is that the engines of that decline, the Barbarians, wanted above all, to become Roman. Long after Europe had forgotten about Roman military might the idea of Romanness and Roman culture lived on.”

And to finish this post, with a note, why Americans find it so hard to Accept their Country is in fact Imperialistic in Nature:

Americans often find it uncomfortable to accept their country as being imperialist or an empire, because they are seen as having fought empire (i.e. the British) and standing up for freedom.

Source:
www.globalissues.org...



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Why is Empire a bad thing?

What is wrong with powerful nations ruling weaker, less able ones? The Roman Empire brought peace to the majority of a continent, allowing pople to become richer on a wider scale than had ever been possible.

The British Empire spread peace and democracy around the world, along with medicine, law and justice. None of which can be sneered at.

Of course all these Empires had their flaws and made terrible, bloody mistakes on occasion, but for the most part they ruled well. And in the same vein it can easily be argued that for every good Empire there has been a bad Empire, the Belgian Congo, Nazi Germany, Attilla the Hun and the Visigoths.

However noone can argue that when an Empire is managed well it can improve the lives of millions.

The USA currently has a weakening informal Empire, following the collapse of the USSR there is no terrible threat to bind W. Europe to the USA, so US influence is weakening. In response to this the US is trying to build up an Empire of sorts in central Asia, bribing countries with money or turning a blind eye to atrocities in exchange for a military prescence and a no questions asked attitude on the part of the local administration.

This Empire is bound to be a short lived situation, until the US no longer needs to have an effect on the region.

I belive that the US needs to become a true Empire rather than a head of a loose and informal coalition and that this Empire should start with Iraq, simply because it is the duty of the US and UK to repair the damage they have done, and a formal Empire is the best way to do this.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   
because we are not an Empire. if u are trying to designate America as an Empire, that means it aint an Empire. i remember wen the American people were divided over the issue of keeping the Phillipines during the Spanish American war in fear that Japan or Germany would take it if we leave it. we had expansionists and anti expansionists duking it out over the Phillipines. these actions shows that America is not like Romans for the Romans welcome any conquered territory or colonization and want to see the slaves brought to Rome. bad comparison. America aint no empire.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Caliphate is also a form of imperialism.

And that what the Jihadists are fighting for. Two way street.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Why is Empire a bad thing?

The British Empire spread peace and democracy around the world, along with medicine, law and justice. None of which can be sneered at.



British empire did not spread democracy Uncle Joe. They installed British governors appointed by the Govt. in colonies. People of the colonies have no say on who becomes their governor.

Peace is also not a part of the british empire. War between colonial powers is frequent despite pax britannica.


Originally posted by Uncle Joe

However noone can argue that when an Empire is managed well it can improve the lives of millions.


Agree.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I apologize for not replying in time, had some home issues that needed some work.


Who Doesn't?

What kind of Question is that?

Do you want me to answer it?

Could you name me one country who hasn't profited or attempted it from war? Thats reality, or the reality we live in.
The only war the US has started in the 20th century was Iraq, but its not even a war.
WWII was the reason why the US left from the great depression, samething with the Soviet Union.


But I guess for an American that's "normal" right - or did I get this Wrong?

That statement was a bit anti-american people. I thought you were anti-american government (no?)



No? Are you Sure?

So let's do a little History Lesson
etc.

Love to. The US economy is ruled by the people who mostly work for the government, who keeps our military stable. So by making a long story short, millions work for the military. To invade a country doesn't nessicarly mean the government is making a profit, neither the military. Take vietnam for example, how much money the government gain from the ten year long war?
How much money did we lose from it?
How many jobs did we lose from it?
How long did it take to relieve ourselves from the debt?
How much support do you the think military gained during and after the war?
What about the world opnion? Tourism?
Lets use Iraq for example.
$189,026,???,??? (the numbers are rising non stop so it is impossible to give a direct answer.)
It is neccesary to keep the oil from Iraq flowing. Not for US interest alone, but world interest.
War is not essential in gaining money (With the exception of WWII), but it is agreed that government interest in the military keeps our economy booming.



Yes Yes we all know why the US Founded the Afganistan Rebels - to payback for all the bloody years of Vietnam and to make Soviet Union pay for what they did to them.

Communism was a great concern for the United States, Western Europe and parts of Asia. It was probably an act of anger to aid the resistance in afghanistan, but mainly to stop the flow of communism. I personally glad we aided them, it played a good role in the fall of the USSR and the end of major nuclear development; but since the it had fallen nobody expected the resistance to gain political control or to form into a "base". Its better to war against an army made up of small cells than a massive superpower military pushed into one great resistance.



How can a so-called Terrorist Organisation be called an Empire?

If you ask me Al-Qaeda is the "Boogey Man" US created in order to start this War on Terrorism and to have an Excuse to invade foreign countires like Afganistan and Iraq.

But that is just IMHO.


We have been arguing about the United States military bases in other countries but not absolute control would make it an empire. Since you consider it one how is Al Qaeda any different?
Al-Qaeda didn't exist until 1988, when we stop funding the mujahadeen, the US didn't need them anymore. The planning ahead idea has some holes, lets dig into politics. Ever since the end of the Soviet invasion of Iraq we have had 4 presidents. Ronald Reagon, George H Bush, Bill Clinton, George W Bush. We have had different congress men and other government figures. So I dont see how we could have pre-planned Al-Qaeda 17 years ahead of time. Not knowing who were going to be in office for the presidency, senate and congress; but who would guess that W Bush would even win over the primaries when his father failed to win his second term. Why would we allow Al-Qaeda to go as far to enter Iraq and kill thousands of civilians and Coalition soldiers; lose credibility and cause global anger. Lose long term friendships with neighboring nations, as well as those from Europe. Then to tell the world that their are no WMD's, no relation to Al Qaeda and 9/11. Sounds like the "conquest" to middle eastern control is over lol.
But like you said, its your opinion.



It's not.

Terrorism is the Problem (created by the "Problem Solvers")

War on Terrorism is the Solution.

War in Iraq is the Reaction to the Problem and the Part of Solution.

But it has ALWAYS been about The Middle East as the center for struggle over control of resources in the 21.st Century. And the First Country in Middle East, with Most Oil Reserves is Saudi Arabia, Right?

Terrorism has been around for centuries, its ridiculous and some what humorous to blame it on the US.

The act is violent and/or life threatening
The act is unlawful
The motive is political or religious
The target is civilian
The objective is to intimidate
The intimidation is directed at government or society
The perpetrator is a non-state entity

en.wikipedia.org...
Muslim fanatics have been blowing themselves up to prove a point for decades.



Ever since the wars, oil has gone up in pricing. This means were having trouble buying it or receiving it. I seriously doubt were stealing for personal gain.
Isn't oil suppose to be reduced greatly if not all in 50 years?
We can find a hell of lot more easily contained and realiable types of material to replace our great dependency on oil. Reduce the need for it, with the exception of plastics. It would cost far less than wars, im quite sure the political powers have realized this.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
because we are not an Empire. if u are trying to designate America as an Empire, that means it aint an Empire. i remember wen the American people were divided over the issue of keeping the Phillipines during the Spanish American war in fear that Japan or Germany would take it if we leave it. we had expansionists and anti expansionists duking it out over the Phillipines. these actions shows that America is not like Romans for the Romans welcome any conquered territory or colonization and want to see the slaves brought to Rome. bad comparison. America aint no empire.


Yes, America is an empire it governs and holds support for many over-continental nations and claims multiple of these lands as their own by way of inforcing a capitolistic, yet safe, democrasy. So, its more of a democratic empire than anything; Just like communism, however, capitolism is more centrally organized hence increasing its empiric values.

Yes, comparing Rome to America is a bad comparison, for reasons of which you know. Nowadays, it is hard to force people into your empire, moreover, one nation may try to be the good guy, keep the people happy as to keep control and order and still be gaining respect as to extend your borders to "extend a peaceful democrasy." Although it is still an empire and it is still pushing to other lands, no questions asked.

More of what you should be trying to ask yourself is: Are our political actions benefitting all people? Are the intentions of this empire upholding the rights and laws of which they do inforce? Do we as a people really have such control in this type of system, or are we just consuming pawns?



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Thaei the Empire did spread democracy, look at India today, would a democratic nation have emerged if it had not been subjected to two centuries of Brititsh rule and esposure to British ideas?

Before WW2 one of Ghandi's main points was that India shouldbe a dominion in the same vein as Canada or S. Africa. When we failed to deliver he campaigned for a home grown democracy in India. Why? Because he was educated in England and saw that the system worked.

If the US was to show the Iraqi's by good example that democracy works, making them want it for themselves, rather than just watching as a small group tries to impose the begginings of a Taliban style state.

A spell of Empire would work wonders in Iraq.



[edit on 23-8-2005 by Uncle Joe]



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by evanfitz
Could you name me one country who hasn't profited or attempted it from war? Thats reality, or the reality we live in.
The only war the US has started in the 20th century was Iraq, but its not even a war.
WWII was the reason why the US left from the great depression, samething with the Soviet Union.

Well at least you Admit that Wars bring more Power to Empires, Old or New. Wars are Profit. Wars are Stock Markets. Wars are Money. Wars are Business. Thats the Reality we Live in. There is no "Noble Cause" such as "Liberating Poor Iraqi People". There are LOTS of people that need to be liberated all over the Globe, but they won't live to see their Liberation.

And PLEASE, click on the link provided bellow in my signature that says "Century of War" and read the Number of Wars the US Started in this century.



Love to. The US economy is ruled by the people who mostly work for the government, who keeps our military stable. So by making a long story short, millions work for the military. To invade a country doesn't nessicarly mean the government is making a profit, neither the military. Take vietnam for example, how much money the government gain from the ten year long war?

No? Are you Sure? When a Country Invades or is preparing for an Invasion, lots of Military Equipment needs to be produces, Ammunitions need to be added, Military Bases need to be built and upgraded, almost ALL military vehicles need gasoline in order to work, meaning more profit for the Oil Industry, and so on and so on.

In those Ten Years the Military developed lots of new weapons, new aircrafts were introducted so the Airforce Industry BOOMED, many Carriers were needed so the Navy also benefited. Ofcourse lots of Marines died, but they are supposed to "Die for their Country", right?



It is neccesary to keep the oil from Iraq flowing. Not for US interest alone, but world interest.
War is not essential in gaining money (With the exception of WWII), but it is agreed that government interest in the military keeps our economy booming.

Your current Goverment and its spreading of Pax Americana is a typical example of Corporate War Profiteeng. I mean, your Vice President is the DIRECTOR of a very Large and very successfull Corporation that makes Billions of Dollars with this War on Terror! He is a typical example of a Businessman that wants to be a politician and wants to infulence his profit with his political power. That my friend is called Fa$cism!



Communism was a great concern for the United States, Western Europe and parts of Asia. It was probably an act of anger to aid the resistance in afghanistan, but mainly to stop the flow of communism. I personally glad we aided them, it played a good role in the fall of the USSR and the end of major nuclear development; but since the it had fallen nobody expected the resistance to gain political control or to form into a "base". Its better to war against an army made up of small cells than a massive superpower military pushed into one great resistance.

In my View the USSR was equally dangerous as the USA. They both had thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at each other and they both were very arrogant in their "Muscle Flexing". Just as the USA wanted Vietnam to be an example of "Western Power in the middle of Communist Asia", USSR wanted Afganistan to be the same example. Actually I can't really imagine what would have happened if Russians took Afganistan - probably nothing, since the Afgani people are used to occupations and endless resistance, so its something everyday for thenm...



We have been arguing about the United States military bases in other countries but not absolute control would make it an empire. Since you consider it one how is Al Qaeda any different.

Al-Qaeda is the Answer to the American Empire.

It is the other side of the Equasion.

Extreme Islamic Fundamentalism is the answer to Corporate Western Expansionism.



Terrorism has been around for centuries, its ridiculous and some what humorous to blame it on the US.

It is Quite Scary how people talk about that Terrorism is something that "Islam Invented". Terrorism has more to do with West then it does with the East. Is IRA a Muslim Terrorist Organisation? How about ETA? Baader-Meinhof? All WESTERN answers to WESTERN problems.

But its the "Boogey Man" of the 21st century - the Islamic Terrorism - that was created by the Pro-War Propaganda Machine in the current American administration.



Ever since the wars, oil has gone up in pricing. This means were having trouble buying it or receiving it. I seriously doubt were stealing for personal gain.
Isn't oil suppose to be reduced greatly if not all in 50 years?
We can find a hell of lot more easily contained and realiable types of material to replace our great dependency on oil. Reduce the need for it, with the exception of plastics. It would cost far less than wars, im quite sure the political powers have realized this.

Its really easy to explain WHY Oil is so Important to the US Empire:

Because the ENTIRE Military is BASED on Oil and without Oil no Aircraft Carrer can sail, no Airplane can lift off and no Tank can storm across the desert. Without Oil the Military is GROUNDED and they simply don't have the time nor the Money to start to "Upgrade" their weapon systems to another energy source. Today they have to secure whats left of the oil reserves in order to keep them "Rolling". It's a matter of Life and Death. And not to mention everything that goes hand in hand with wars:

- Military Industry
- Oil Industry
- Construction Corporations

The Wheels keep turning this Way....

[edit on 23/8/05 by Souljah]



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Caliphate is also a form of imperialism.

And that what the Jihadists are fighting for. Two way street.


Does this mean wishing you had an empire is the same as having one?

Couldn't be more different I'm afraid.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Before WW2 one of Ghandi's main points was that India shouldbe a dominion in the same vein as Canada or S. Africa. When we failed to deliver he campaigned for a home grown democracy in India. Why? Because he was educated in England and saw that the system worked.

Wrong.

If Gandhi never would "Stand up" against the British Empire, they would still probably be a part of it. The Brits were the Occupying Army and they did not bring Democracy - Gandhi brought that into India. You know how? Becuase he used a "Non-Violent" Approach and the Empire does not have a Cure against that. They are just prepared to use Violence against any "Rebels" but they can't use Violence against Non-Violence.

"There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for".

With statements like that, you can not really Shut this Man down, can you? Kill him and he becomes even stronger as a Martyr, a Hero of the People. He defeated an entire Empire with nonviolence and nonresistance. And that was, as He belived, the wider mission to seek the TRUTH. You know whats amazing? That his words work in any time and in any place.

He found that uncovering the truth was not always popular as many people were resistant to change, preferring instead to maintain the existing status quo because of either inertia, self-interest or misguided beliefs. However he also discovered that once the truth was on the march nothing could stop it. All it took was time to achieve traction and gain momentum. As Gandhi said:

"The truth is far more powerful than any weapon of mass destruction".


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Ghandi was brilliant.

Shame that India independance led to the death of 1 million people.

And still England exported the concept of Democracy to India. So the Empire spread Democracy. Therefore a well run Empire is a good thing.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Ghandi was brilliant.

Shame that India independance led to the death of 1 million people.

And still England exported the concept of Democracy to India. So the Empire spread Democracy. Therefore a well run Empire is a good thing.

How many Casualties were there in USA War for Independance?

And Engalnd Exported IMPERIALISM to India and not Democracy, for they had no need or desire to make India a Soverign, Demcoratic state, but to make India a part of the Empire for as long as possible.

Gandhi spoiled their plans.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   

How many Casualties were there in USA War for Independance?


Exact figure is unknown; they didn’t exactly keep constant record in those days.


Casualty figures for the Patriots have varied over the years; a recent scholarly estimate lists 6,824 killed and 8,445 wounded in action. The number of Patriot troop deaths from disease and other non-combat causes is estimated at about 18,500.


American War of Independence



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Souljah, you aren't argueing with me, just saying that you dont like imperialism!

A well run Empire is a good thing, the British Empire was well run. The Empire sent democracy around the world. Would India be a democracy today were it not for the Empire? How about Australia? Or Canada? Or South Africa? Or even America for that matter?

However much you dislike it Empire works. America needs to be an Empire. Unfortunately America cannot be an Empire due to the limitations of its people.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
With respect, its not fair to blame "england" for the imperialism of the british empire any one who says so is rather ignorant.
PS, might I add some members need to work on thier geography or even just take a bloody look at the map of britain...



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Wasp are you imlying that Scotland had nothing to do with the Empire? If so read a little, and just count the number of scots involved with various Imperial activities.

If not, then sorry, i just cant read



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Wasp are you imlying that Scotland had nothing to do with the Empire? If so read a little, and just count the number of scots involved with various Imperial activities.

Exsactly oposite....


If not, then sorry, i just cant read

I think you cant...



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   
So you are, sorry about that! My mistake. Will think next time...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join