American Imperialism

[Spagelo]

I recently opened a thread concerning the John Kennedy assassination and the conspiracies behind it. While there are people who will devote loads of time debating that specifically, I think the point I like to fight for overall is how far the Johnson administration brought down this country, and how much farther we've dropped since then. LBJ had a good run for civil rights (a continuation of JFK's policies), then began to escalate the war [we had been funding since 1954] in the French monument of failure we called Indochina. He milked the Military-Industrial Complex for bribes and sent half a million of our brothers to die for the biggest nothing in history. They told us there was a chain of dominoes pushed by a communist world revolution, and that we had to stop the reaction in a backwater Asian land led by a nationalist with communist policies who wanted the Soviets and the Chinese out along with us. They didn't matter in the grand scale of the Cold War, but they were a valuable colony. Viet Nam was an imperial struggle.

 

America is not an empire in a classical sense because the world has changed enough that they can no longer operate that way. When the Belgians, for instance, claimed the Congo, it was a very backwards and primitive place. With a few guns and a bit of greed, they could land and do anything they wanted. They went there to poach ivory and harvest rubber, and they could do it efficiently and without trouble because they were organized and heavily armed. Today, places like that are different; they have guns, organization, and government. Although they are third world countries, rifles have long since replaced the wooden spears. We can't go in and add them to the red of our map because they aren't easy to mess with anymore, and we technically aren't supposed to. So we do it by means of war.

 

In the old days, entities like the faceless ivory companies from Brussels and the East India Company from London were able to go over themselves because it was easy to. However, you give native people guns and you get something like the Sepoy Rebellion. John Company wasn't able to handle it themselves, so they called out the government to help. Today, they are all dangerous to rob, so the defense industries here, the natural resources companies here, and et cetera will pay off people in the government or have government men take financial interest in their companies. Then we go to war.

 

Belgian men were not sent on a mission to fight for their country against foreign aggressors in the Congo, they were there to poach ivory and make profit, but everybody knew it; good for the Belgians, and bad for the Africans. Now, you take the French and Viet Nam, the British and India, and you get the same thing all around. There was a time when an American could be mistakenly shot by the Viet Minh if he looked British, but would be greeted warmly if he looked American. Now, that colonial heritage has been passed on to us. We are the British, the 'sharp noses'. But we live in an empire where we are given obligation without authority, where every other empire in history had the opposite.

 

When we colonize a territory, we do it to 'fight wars for our country', 'protect from communists' and 'protect from terrorists'. And once the government clears out an area like Viet Nam or Iraq, the companies move in and start robbing the countries we've invaded. It didn't quite work like we planned in Viet Nam, but it works better in the middle east. Unlike the Europeans who all volunteered, were sent by the companies themselves, and were given a cut of what was stolen, the soldiers are given nothing. In Viet Nam, they were drafted and forced to go over there, then come home with nothing while companies were stacked with profits from being in the business of 'defense'. Today, we are tricked into going over to these places because the government makes believe that there is something to fight against. Unlike with those that came before us, these imperial expansions aren't good for anybody over there. It's bad for the people who go over, and it's bad for the people who are over.

 

Saying that American wars after World War II are more disgusting than Leopold's colonization of the Congo is a particularly nasty comment and a pretty far leap, but it's one I can back up. And in that - strange as it may seem - I only say it with love for my country and a desire to see it improve. I believe in our ideals of freedom and democracy, and I love the people who live in the land under them. I think the government today is more anti-American than not, and I see their imperial efforts as an assault on almost every aspect of the American way. As a patriotic American, I see it as my duty to stand against war and all the death and destruction it brings. As a patriotic American, I will not help my country commit suicide.

[BTGBullseye]

South Vietnam requested US involvement... It wasn't us going out and trying to colonize them.

[ThePest179]

snip

 

How old are you? This is a serious question; when I was younger I used to be really into political stuff like this and wrote out big rants like these. I find it embarrassing nowadays.

[Spagelo]

South Vietnam requested US involvement... It wasn't us going out and trying to colonize them.

We wouldn't have gone if we didn't have money to make from it. Money, power, and influence were really the only good reasons to have American soldiers fight Asian wars. Viets have loyalty to Viet Nam and a stake in a civil war, Americans do not.

 

How old are you? This is a serious question; when I was younger I used to be really into political stuff like this and wrote out big rants like these. I find it embarrassing nowadays.

A lady never tells her age. Your own business keeps you busy 48 hours odd to 24, didn't your mother tell you?

[Luis]

Imperialism does not need to count in direct boots-on-ground military intervention. The US has a long history of intervening in Latin American democracies and politics, supporting dictators, regime changes and with the most remarkable being assisting a coup d'etat in Chile in 1973 against Salvador Allende a democratically elected left-wing candidate, airstriking the Parlament and killing him. All because of in-house interests.

 

Let me put it this way: The only major armed conflict Costa Rica (my country) has ever had was against Nicaraguan forces led by an infamous US imperialist, William Walker who invaded Nicaragua in the middle of the 19th century and just proclamed himself president, supported by the US government. You can look up lots and lots of examples of the US supporting nasty stuff like dictators and Death Squads in Latin America all through the 70s, 80s and 90s.

 

In 1823, through the Monroe Doctrine the US basically dictates Latin America is its backyard and they have as much right to excerce influence over the territory as they wish.

[Spagelo]

Imperialism does not need to count in direct boots-on-ground military intervention. The US has a long history of intervening in Latin American democracies and politics, supporting dictators, regime changes and with the most remarkable being assisting a coup d'etat in Chile in 1973 against Salvador Allende a democratically elected left-wing candidate, airstriking the Parlament and killing him. All because of in-house interests.

 

Let me put it this way: The only major armed conflict Costa Rica (my country) has ever had was against Nicaraguan forces led by an infamous US imperialist, William Walker who invaded Nicaragua in the middle of the 19th century and just proclamed himself president, supported by the US government. You can look up lots and lots of examples of the US supporting nasty stuff like dictators and Death Squads in Latin America all through the 70s, 80s and 90s.

 

In 1823, through the Monroe Doctrine the US basically dictates Latin America is its backyard and they have as much right to excerce influence over the territory as they wish.

Indeed, imperialism comes in many forms.

[ThePest179]

How old are you? This is a serious question; when I was younger I used to be really into political stuff like this and wrote out big rants like these. I find it embarrassing nowadays.

A lady never tells her age. Your own business keeps you busy 48 hours odd to 24, didn't your mother tell you?

 

[Spagelo]

(Image)

[A Satanic Panda]

South Vietnam requested US involvement... It wasn't us going out and trying to colonize them.

We wouldn't have gone if we didn't have money to make from it. Money, power, and influence were really the only good reasons to have American soldiers fight Asian wars. Viets have loyalty to Viet Nam and a stake in a civil war, Americans do not.

To that I say the US was protecting its ally from a communist invasion. You can say what you want about communist boogeymen and the Red Menace, but nobody wanted Moscow influencing their politics. The USSR's "imperialism" makes the US almost look like a saint. Go read up on the history of South East Asia after the communist take over. It's brutal.

[Spagelo]

To that I say the US was protecting its ally from a communist invasion. You can say what you want about communist boogeymen and the Red Menace, but nobody wanted Moscow influencing their politics. The USSR's "imperialism" makes the US almost look like a saint. Go read up on the history of South East Asia after the communist take over. It's brutal.

The Viets needed aid from the Chinese and the Russians to fight the Americans and the French, but that didn't mean they wanted to be in with them when the war was over. Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist; if the Viets were to be communist, they were to be Vietnamese communists. They hated the nations backing them because both wanted Viet Nam under their thumbs as much as the Americans did. Nonetheless, they saw them as a necessary evil for the aid they received.

 

Even people like Henry Kissinger knew (and later admitted) that the Viet domino didn't matter in the grand scale of things, and the nationalism was a big reason why. U.S. involvement in the Second Indochina War made no sense when you tear away all the bullshit.

[Im_CIA]

Western civilization is built on the backs of outsiders, that is a fact. And no matter how incompetent or benevolent the current administration is, someone somewhere is always getting the short end of the stick for our benefit. That's not say life is a zero-sum game, but the scales are definitely skewed in our favour.

 

Is it unethical? I would say yes. But what can be done about it? The most obvious answer would be to redistribute wealth and resources amongst all the countries in the world. Simple right? But are you prepared to cut down your individual consumption by several factors? Are your prepared to give up the most expensive item you own? Your house? Your car? Are you prepared to face the uncertainty of much different, much less secure, much harder life? Am I? It's always easy to scorn the system over a full plate of food, not so easy to share without even knowing how much you'll loose.

 

Personally, I believe the only way to create a truly balanced world without nations, like the US, dominating the rest, is by gradual changes over a couple hundred years. Though I highly doubt it will ever happen.

[Spagelo]

Western civilization is built on the backs of outsiders, that is a fact. And no matter how incompetent or benevolent the current administration is, someone somewhere is always getting the short end of the stick for our benefit. That's not say life is a zero-sum game, but the scales are definitely skewed in our favour.

 

Is it unethical? I would say yes. But what can be done about it? The most obvious answer would be to redistribute wealth and resources amongst all the countries in the world. Simple right? But are you prepared to cut down your individual consumption by several factors? Are your prepared to give up the most expensive item you own? Your house? Your car? Are you prepared to face the uncertainty of much different, much less secure, much harder life? Am I? It's always easy to scorn the system over a full plate of food, not so easy to share without even knowing how much you'll loose.

 

Personally, I believe the only way to create a truly balanced world without nations, like the US, dominating the rest, is by gradual changes over a couple hundred years. Though I highly doubt it will ever happen.

Of course, even if we were to set on that road now, it'd be well after our time that we'd reach such a balance. Quick changes are not easy to make from old and intrinsic traditions, and good things come with time. We have picked up where the generations before us left off, and we will carry on until nature leaves us, and the torch is passed to our descendents.

 

You know, there were at least seven generations that lived through a time when the flintlock gun was the most modern form of firearm, and I can bet that there were many who doubted we'd ever get beyond that. But developments to that mechanism, such as the breech-loading system, came over time to advance it until flint-striking became an obsolete method of ignition. Just as the inventor of the flintlock might be baffled by the idea of an automatic weapon, we are sometimes doubtful of ideas and possibilities that seem to be too far off to ever be in reach.

 

Remember that there was time before us and there will be time after us. Each generation of human beings are just as human as the next. We have come this far, and we can go much further.

[Selous Templar]

Still happy that America is the Global Hegemony of the world because it's what we need to progress civilisation.

However that does not mean America is perfect, and from the obsurd amount of Government control and interference in your lives, to the absolutely retarded justice system, and the goddamn soul destroying binary party politics that America was not even designed to have, there needs to be a clean sweep and a drain of the swamp if America is going to be respected as the global hegemony. The most recent president at time of writing seems to be a step in the right direction, however he's human and makes mistakes, so it will take a hell of a lot more than Donald Trump to fix the mess America is in.

That's my two cents, even if I may or may not have talked about actual Imperialism in this (sorry.)

[Spagelo]

Still happy that America is the Global Hegemony of the world because it's what we need to progress civilisation.

However that does not mean America is perfect, and from the obsurd amount of Government control and interference in your lives, to the absolutely retarded justice system, and the goddamn soul destroying binary party politics that America was not even designed to have, there needs to be a clean sweep and a drain of the swamp if America is going to be respected as the global hegemony. The most recent president at time of writing seems to be a step in the right direction, however he's human and makes mistakes, so it will take a hell of a lot more than Donald Trump to fix the mess America is in.

That's my two cents, even if I may or may not have talked about actual Imperialism in this (sorry.)

Poking a dictator of a nuclear nation with a stick and stripping net neutrality are steps in the right direction? He may have talked a good game during the election, but it's different when you're living under his administration. The man doesn't even really do anything, himself; he basically just plays golf and beats his chest while the GOP stooges he appointed run the country further into the ground.

 

What a grand old time it is that our 'democracy' can't even give regular Americans a choice between a business criminal and a political criminal, but have an electoral college make that decision for us.

[BTGBullseye]

Poking a dictator of a nuclear nation with a stick and stripping net neutrality are steps in the right direction? He may have talked a good game during the election, but it's different when you're living under his administration. The man doesn't even really do anything, himself; he basically just plays golf and beats his chest while the GOP stooges he appointed run the country further into the ground.

 

What a grand old time it is that our 'democracy' can't even give regular Americans a choice between a business criminal and a political criminal, but have an electoral college make that decision for us.

1. Trump can't control what the FCC does, and Obama put Pai in there.

2. NK isn't a real threat to anyone except South Korea.

3. The limited selection of candidates is because the American public has been taught to pick people based on what they say at the time, not what their history shows them to be. Research on the background of the candidates is ridiculed because "it's such a nerdy thing to do", and incomplete backgrounds portrayed by mass media are all the more that the public wants. This results in a lack of information about the candidates, and an attempt to misinform people into voting a particular way. (like all the major media saying that Clinton would win by a landslide until the final hours of the election proved otherwise)

[Templar Knight]

I think the situation has made things very clear to people that America is not strictly a "Democracy", its a Democratic Republic. Nothing wrong with that, just that its evident a lot of people don't recognize or aren't familiar with the distinction.

 

As for the President's treatment of NK, its actually no different than how basically the last 4 Presidents have addressed the situation thus far. His administration is merely a little more blunt about it than most of them. If anything, NK itself has ratcheted up its own rhetoric and actions recently. Firing a blank over Japan's bow? Japan wasn't even that interested in the situation until that happened. Now look at the situation: China's agreed to more sanctions than ever before and may even be open to a strategic deal with the US to end the situation (who knows?), Russia's apparently moved several thousands of troops over to Vladivostok and they're no friends with North Korea, and several US navy fleets have been moved into closer positions with daily drills going on in SK.

 

I hate to say it, because I don't like the idea of supporting war, but it may be the best thing for the situation in Korea if the war were to reignite and break the longest armistice in modern history. I'm not saying drop nukes, I'm saying formally invade with a coordinated effort and put an end to this nonsense before it does get totally out of hand. Plus I wager it'd be a war that at least has the potential of doing a lot more good for the world in resolving than all the ones that have been going on in the Middle East.

 

Because what's the alternative? The NKs have no intention of letting their nukes go, they know what that means if they give them up, so they're likely to just keep steadily building their arsenal until they have one that rivals the US, or anyone else that might try and stop them. Once they have that, who's to stop them from just marching down and formally invading South Korea, with the threat being that anyone who tries to help them will get nuked? It'd be a total diplomatic failure for everyone involved, and basically the Japanese invasion of Manchuria/ Rape of Nanking equivalent for the UN (if they don't already have an equivalent by now). The US would be disgraced, the UN would be disgraced, and everyone else that's tried to avoid that situation, not to mention a huge humanitarian disaster for South Korea whose people would likely be killed, or enslaved.

 

He also just passed his tax plan without much hassle, NAFTA talks are ongoing at expected pace last I checked, and he got his travel ban through the Supreme Court (7:2 btw, so it wasn't even a split vote along party lines). Were it not for the "Never-Trumpers" within his own party like McCain and the lower judiciaries, he'd probably be getting a lot more done. Not that anyone will ever give him any credit, 90% of the media is fixated on his Twitter feed and the Russian Investigation that's going nowhere fast.

 

I would agree though that the last election was disappointing to see in terms of candidates. You had no really good choice. But I will say, I found it endlessly entertaining to watch how stupefied everyone was at the results and was arguably kicked off the most interesting sets of elections I've seen in my lifetime, at least from a spectator's perspective (actually Brexit may have done that first, but either way). They kept telling themselves the same fantasy over and over to themselves so much over the months leading up to it, and merely confirming their own biases, that nobody even contemplated that reality might play out differently. Small surprise that afterwards tons of people went flailing about looking for any irrational reason to explain or blame the results on rather than accept the results and try to make the best of the situation.