It's Imperialism

How the War in Iraq Increases Interntional Terrorism and Other Imerialistic "Stuff".

"Americans do not like to think of themselves as aggressors, but raw aggression is what took place in Iraq," national security and intelligence analyst John Prados concluded after his careful, extensive review of the documentary record in his 2004 book "Hoodwinked."

Prados describes the Bush "scheme to convince America and the world that war with Iraq was necessary and urgent" as "a case study in government dishonesty ... that required patently untrue public statements and egregious manipulation of intelligence." The Downing Street memo, published on May 1 in The Sunday Times of London, along with other newly available confidential documents, have deepened the record of deceit.

For US-UK planners, invading Iraq was a far higher priority than the "war on terror." That much is revealed by the reports of their own intelligence agencies. On the eve of the allied invasion, a classified report by the National Intelligence Council, the intelligence community's center for strategic thinking, "predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict," Douglas Jehl and David E. Sanger reported in The New York Times last September. In December 2004, Jehl reported a few weeks later, the NIC warned that "Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are 'professionalised' and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself." The willingness of top planners to risk increase of terrorism does not of course indicate that they welcome such outcomes. Rather, they are simply not a high priority in comparison with other objectives, such as controlling the world's major energy resources.

Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the more astute of the senior planners and analysts, pointed out in the journal National Interest that America's control over the Middle East "gives it indirect but politically critical leverage on the European and Asian economies that are also dependent on energy exports from the region." If the United States can maintain its control over Iraq, with the world's second largest known oil reserves, and right at the heart of the world's major energy supplies, that will enhance significantly its strategic power and influence over its major rivals in the tripolar world that has been taking shape for the past 30 years: US-dominated North America, Europe, and Northeast Asia, linked to South and Southeast Asia economies.

Source:
Chomsky.info

And yet another very nicely structured Opinion by Professor Chomsky, that Illustrates how the "War on Terror" does not eliminate the International Terrorism, but in fact increases it. Which is really not a very high priority in this alleged "War on Terror".

Do You think that "War on Terror" is doing Good?

Think Again:

U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism

United States: Losing the War on Terror

Evidence that the U.S. May Be Losing the Global War on Terror

Three Years On, War on Terrorism Looks Like a Loser

The 'War on Terrorism': Winning or Losing?

CNN - Terror threat to U.S. called 'significant'

Global terror attacks TRIPLED in 2004

MSNBC - Worldwide terrorism-related deaths on the rise

US Losing the War on Terror in Iraq

Occupation Made World Less Safe, Pro-War Institute Says

Bush's Iraq Invasion Hurt War on Terror

Blix Says Iraq War May Have Worsened Terror Threat

Iraq intervention increased threat of terrorism

News BBC - Iraq war 'increased terror threat'

Iraq war has swollen ranks of al-Qaida

MSNBC - State Dept. revises flawed report on terrorism

CIA: Iraq Conflict Feeds International Terror Threat

CBS - Polls, Powell And The Iraq Campaign

Mod Edit: Title only.

[edit on 20-8-2005 by UM_Gazz]

The war on terror does no good. It, in fact, has awoken a sleeping giant.
Where before, it was Osama and a few of his henchmen (fairy tales) it is now the world at large joining in in the name of Islam.
And we're not done yet.

"Imperialism"

"The policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly: the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence."

www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~williams/e314l/terms_and_concepts.htm


We are not acquiring Iraq as a territory like Puerto Rica or Guam. We are participating in assisting their own internal desires to build a democratic government.

The level of trouble exists because we did not act sooner. If we had participated in supporting pro-Western governments in both Vietnam and and Afghanistan in the 1950's, just after WWII when they approached us for aid, we would have avoided all of these conflicts.

We considered Saddam Hussein, despite his horrible civil rights violations, a lesser of two evils (compared to anti-US Iran). However, the potential for allegiance in Iraq with the Taliban Bin Laden and his extremist movements undermines the political stability of the entire Western world.

We are only beginning to fully understand the depth of emotion felt by Islamic countries and people.

Noam Chomsky is a brilliant linguist, however, he has a history of objecting to anything that doesn't suit his own personal politics, which is certainly his right, but which really doesn't work outside of say Sweden.

What we need to do now is to understand the ideology of the Islamic people, and learn to give them what they need without sacrificing our own security here and abroad.

Imperialism

Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial conquest or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is often used to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire.

That's the Definiton from the Wikipedia. Well you can call it whatever you like, but I still think America Today IS an Empire, but a Modern Empire. With the Fall of Iron Curtain and the Collapse of Soviet Union, the United States does not really have any Opponent worth the Power US posses. Facts are that US has numerously Interveined in the Middle Eastern Area, even during the Cold War Times - assisted in Coups, assasinations and other "Black Operations" that were based in this area. Middle East has been a "Playground" for World Superpowers for a Long time, and Today when the Great Russian Bear is Gone, the only main "Players" in the Game of Geopolitcs are the United States - followed by Asian Coalition (Russia-China-India) and European Union.

As there are few other countries with such a capability, it has been said by some that U.S. military actions are partly or mostly acts of militarist imperialism. Others simply believe that such allegations are used as groundless criticism against the U.S. whenever it takes a military action. Two uncontroversial facts are that the U.S. currently has a much larger and more sophisticated military than any other country — operating over 100 bases in every part of the world. The U.S. has also used its military to control its interests. It is debatable whether these things alone constitute imperialism, or whether such "imperialism" adequately resembles past incarnations — Roman, British, German or otherwise.

[edit on 20/8/05 by Souljah]

grad_student, as I was reading over your definition of Imperialism, I was nodding my head, thinking, Yes, yes, that's what is happening... especially this: "by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas"

Originally posted by grad_student
We are not acquiring Iraq as a territory like Puerto Rica or Guam. We are participating in assisting their own internal desires to build a democratic government.

That's the cover story, anyway. And while many people believe that, many do not. We may not be acquiring Iraq as a territory, but we are (in my opinion) attempting to instill the power structure and influence the government and political makeup to our political advantage, so that the leaders of Iraq will in essence be under the control of the US government.

This may not be all out in the open for all to evaluate, but I very strongly believe that a puppet government in Iraq is the goal.

I agree that Chomsky is no Sweden, but I agree with what he has said here. The War on Terror has been nothing more than a boon to the terror operations in the world and has made more and angrier enemies of the US in the world.

Originally posted by grad_student
"Imperialism"
What we need to do now is to understand the ideology of the Islamic people, and learn to give them what they need without sacrificing our own security here and abroad.

Shouldn't this have been done before our incursion into Irag?
The planners of this war have exhibited such blatant ethnocentrism.
Many American and Iraqi lives could have been saved if it hadn't of been for the coalitions arrogance.

Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial conquest or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries.

Im sorta glad this thread showed up. It forces me to do something I wanted to do, but just to lazy.

The British Empire owned 33% of the land on Earth.


The Roman Empire



Nazi Germanys conquest owned most of Europe.


Imperial Japan's conquest during WWII.





The United States imperial conquest??? (Just itself, a massive block of ice, and a nice beach.)



Major difference between imperial governments over a foriegn area.
The land dosent have a government, or a self ruling higher power other than the invaders system.

Places that have US military facilities such as Germany, it still has a self ruling government. Even Iraq can rule much of itself. Its just a large mess, but when things begin to clear up they will demonstrate.

BTW, many of these bases that were installed on foriegn land served the purpose of stoping Imperialism or were their for control of a former empire.







[edit on 20-8-2005 by evanfitz]

Im sorta glad this post showed up. It forces me to do something I wanted to do, but I Forgot:

There you go - a Graphic Image of American Empire.




Large Image Link


Yet Another More Detailed Map


Other Empires are a bit Small compared to American Empire now, huh?



Mod Edit: Large image changed to link.

[edit on 20-8-2005 by UM_Gazz]

You have voted evanfitz for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

I guess we control and own Germany, England and Japan since we have bases in their counties right?
Foreign based military installations is not Imperialism. The total control of a foreign county is.
Learn the difference then come post again.


[edit on 20-8-2005 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I guess we control Germany, England and Japan since we have bases in their counties right?
Foreign based military installations is not Imperialism. The total control of a foreign county is.
Learn the difference then come post again.

Fine by me - take it however you want to, let me just READ some FACTS:

46 Countries without US Presence (only)

156 Countries with US Troops

63 Countries With US Presence and Troops

7 Countries with 13 New US Bases since 9-11/2001 and before the Iraqi Invason

Thats pretty nice Staistics don't you think?

Oh yes, and let's not forget that US has around 250.000 Troops ABROAD!

Originally posted by Souljah
There you go - a Graphic Image of American Empire.

The world will be truly safe, free, democratic and provide equal rights when that map is all red Souljah.

Uhh... and your point is?
Name me the countries you listed above that we control and own?

Like I said it doesn't matte if the US has bases in every county in the world, if they functioning on their own and have their own elected government its not imperialism!


[edit on 20-8-2005 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I guess we control Germany, England and Japan since we have bases in their counties right?
Foreign based military installations is not Imperialism. The total control of a foreign county is.
Learn the difference then come post again.

Fine by me - take it however you want to, let me just READ some FACTS:

46 Countries without US Presence (only)

156 Countries with US Troops



63 Countries With US Presence and Troops

7 Countries with 13 New US Bases since 9-11/2001 and before the Iraqi Invason

Thats pretty nice Staistics don't you think?

Oh yes, and let's not forget that US has around 250.000 Troops ABROAD!

and how many Countries does the US control and fully govern.

0.

Therefore no empire.

[edit on 20-8-2005 by evanfitz]

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by Souljah
There you go - a Graphic Image of American Empire.

The world will be truly safe, free, democratic and provide equal rights when that map is all red Souljah.

I knew somebody is going to come in and say that.

So you want all Map to be Red?

And when all countries have Mcdonalds Restaurants and so-called "Democracy"?

Just can't wait DJ....

Many of those bases were actually their to stop an imperialism or to prevent one.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I guess we control and own Germany, England and Japan since we have bases in their counties right?

It's not that we control and own them, especially not now, but I'm looking at this prospect as though we may be on our way to ...

"... extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by ... gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly: the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence."

I may be wrong, but after Afghanistan and Iraq, what next? Iran? Syria? After all the Middle East is the most oil- rich area in the world. We don't have to own Germany, England and Japan to be Imperialistic.

Great maps, everyone!

It's not that we control and own them, especially not now, but I'm looking at this prospect as though we may be on our way to ...

"... extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by ... gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly: the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence."

I may be wrong, but after Afghanistan and Iraq, what next? Iran? Syria? After all the Middle East is the most oil- rich area in the world. We don't have to own Germany, England and Japan to be Imperialistic.

The influence is one to be considered; but it strikes back with authority, we must remind ourselves that it was Germany and Germany alone (perhaps some friendly neighbors) that declined in sending forces to Iraq.

We dont own Iraq nor Afghanistan. Infact were slowly converting them to a democracy similar to Germany and Japan.

Great maps, everyone!

Thanks, the thread title was a bit harsh so somebody had to color it up.

[edit on 20-8-2005 by evanfitz]

Originally posted by evanfitz
Many of those bases were actually their to stop an imperialism or to prevent one.

To Stop WHO's Imperialistic Tendencies?

Who really can do anything against the united States Today?

and how many Countries does the US control and fully govern.

0.

Therefore no empire.

Let's read the Definition again:

Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial conquest or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries.





[edit on 20/8/05 by Souljah]

IMO there is a new version of 'imperialism', it is simply a refinement over the old.

It's easily done, a more or less universal economic 'orthodoxy' is established in sufficient countries and those countries that imagine themselves to be completely independant all nevertheless follow that 'orthodoxy'.

Where countries refuse to follow this then they are either encouraged to by financial assistance so long as they follow the rules (which is exactly how the IMF & World Bank operate) or they suffer with internal groups being supported from outside and civil war may follow (as has happened throughout South America).

With one or two exceptions the last alternative is out and out war.

However you cut it it is still all about forcing the majority of the world to operate a set of rules designed to benefit, mainly, the already priviledged minority (for whom all this talk of countries and nationality is merely an amusing interest for those not wealthy enough to have transcended it).

Good thread,

The American Federal Empire....

"... extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by ... gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly: the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence."

We are so there, but have been for a long time. The number 1 problem with the Iraqies making there constitution is Who controls' there oil. We have built or are building "permanent" bases there.

We need the oid to cheaply fuels our economy, our civilization, our western way of life, and you know what, we think everybody on Earth shold live the same way.

We as a country Destroyed the enviroment to destroy the American Indians, there culture, there society, there way of life. Snatching up there land like a flat screened tv sale at wally-world.

The United States of America has allways been a Empire, spreading, taking resourses from all who stand in our way, Im surprized we didn't add mexico as a state when we as the USA took California, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico...ect from them....Remember the Alamo

We took Guam, and other small Islands throughout the Pasific during and after WWII.

and it continues to this day


peace