"American Empire" In Decline thanks to Bush?

[MilwaukeeMike]

"Empires eventually collapse as they become weakened by war or internal tyranny. The British Empire was weakened by the world wars, and imperialism lost popular support. The French tried to hang on to Indochina and Algeria, but gave up, as colonized people no longer tolerated being ruled by European foreigners. Meanwhile, the Soviet empire expanded beyond the USSR, which itself was an empire, into satellite states in Eastern Europe, Cuba, and Afghanistan. The world was dominated by the American and Soviet empires, which controlled and influenced many of the world's states.

The Soviet Empire depended on propaganda as well as force for its existence, and as the tyranny of Soviet rule became more exposed, totalitarian socialism lost its intellectual foundation. The Soviet empire collapsed, and the republics of the USSR became independent states. Russia is still an empire, having previously expanded into Islamic territory and other lands inhabited by non-Russians. The Chechen war is an attempt to maintain the lesser Russian empire.

After the collapse of the Soviet realm, the American empire expanded into middle and eastern Europe under the rubric of NATO. The last obstacle to American dominance in Europe was Serbia, and the Clinton administration fought the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo to crush this futile resistance to American might.

The current war in Iraq really started with the first Gulf War and continued under Clinton with bombings and trade barriers. The current stage of the war in Iraq can be seen as an expansion of the American empire into the heart of the Middle East, eliminating a tyrant who defied American dominance. Afghanistan too is now under American dominance. Israel, of course, has long been an American ally in the Middle East.

The states defying American dominance now include China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Burma. Cuba especially rankles the U.S. chiefs because it was part of the original U.S. 1898 expansion and got away. It's more than Cuban exiles that makes the U.S. chiefs of both political parties hostile to the elimination of trade and travel barriers. The chiefs want Cuba back into the American empirical fold, impossible so long as Castro rules.

The anti-American feelings around the world stem from an opposition to imperial American rule. People world-wide admire the American republic, with the liberty for which it stands. But they don't like the American empire that overthrows governments, wages wars, and props up dictatorships. Perhaps some of this could be excused during the Cold War, but after 1990 there would have been no intellectual rational for empire building if the Muslim supremacists had not provided one in 9/11/2001.

Empires thrive on conflict, and immediately after the Cold War ended, a new global conflict emerged with Muslim supremacists. Ultimately, the supremacists cannot win, because their terrorist ideology is as weak as that of the old totalitarian socialists. Their use of terror only strengthens the American empire. Their attack in 2001 enabled the U.S. government to obtain unprecedented internal power and an excuse to extend the American empire into the Middle East. Just as Israeli expansion and control over Palestinians thrives on the violence of the Palestinian 'resistance,' American dominance requires an enemy, and the Middle Eastern supremacists have handed the imperial American chiefs a new intellectual rationale for the empire.

The American empire is bipartisan. Both Democrats and Republicans have expanded the empire. Only the minor parties, such as the Greens and Libertarians, fundamentally oppose the American empire. Many Americans don't like the empire, but they maintain it by voting for the major party they think is the lesser evil. We now hear the mantra, 'anyone but Bush.' The chiefs of empire laugh, because the greatest expansion of the American empire was under 'progressive' Democrats such as Wilson and Truman. The U.S. Constitution was designed to limit empire building, but like the requirement for Congress to declare war, the safeguards of the Constitution are ignored by both parties.

Ultimately it is the American voter who maintains the empire by voting for the illusion of a lesser imperial evil. Unfortunately for America, just as other empires collapsed, so too will the American empire eventually fall to internal decay and external over-expansion unless Americans support a political party that will let go the empire. "
Fred E. Foldvary, Progress Report 2004

The question here is not will the American empire continue forever; it won't. The question here is; has the United States hit its apex of power and might? And are we now in decline because of irresponsible use of our military, and overwhelmingly strong anti-American sentiment raging across the world? Who is to blame for this? I believe that we are in the beginning of a period where American dominance will continually be tested and confronted; case in point, China shooting a satellite down. I believe we are entering a period where America breaths its final gasp of air and puffs its chest one last time before venturing down the path of so many other great empires of long ago. The biggest question of all is how are we (Americans) going to let this happen? Are we going to slowly bleed our country to death through large deficits, continued involvement in the Middle East, and increasing internal tensions that will slowly cause is to fade from the spot light? Or are we going to go out in a blaze of glory fighting China in World War 3? Of course back to my title where I reference Bush; I personally believe he has played a huge role in not only destroying our the fragile positive international opinion we had, but has so defiled what the founding fathers put into place to prevent people like Mr. Bush from obtaining the power he has had, that he has broken down the internal prevention measures that made America what it was. People around the world now view America as a country that threatens international peace instead of preserving it. As a patriotic American that is personally hurt every time I hear about it, I prey America can get through the next two years so we can start new on restoring what we once had. What does everyone think about this topic.

God Bless America!

The entire article that I quoted can be found at the following location.
http://www.progress.org/2004/fold360.htm

[WildCat]

Oh man, I hope we don't lose all our colonies!

[WildCat]

BTW Mike, your post violates Rule 4 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=45132). You should have just quoted this partly, and linked to the source (http://www.progress.org/2004/fold360.htm).

[MilwaukeeMike]

BTW Mike, your post violates Rule 4 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=45132). You should have just quoted this partly, and linked to the source (http://www.progress.org/2004/fold360.htm).

Under the actual article, the fine print states that it is alright to reproduce this article when full credit is given to "Fred Foldvary and The Progress Report." Which I gave credit too and posted his website. I do not see any other problems with this.

[rikzilla]

I personally believe he has played a huge role in not only destroying our the fragile positive international opinion we had, but has so defiled what the founding fathers put into place to prevent people like Mr. Bush from obtaining the power he has had, that he has broken down the internal prevention measures that made America what it was. People around the world now view America as a country that threatens international peace instead of preserving it. As a patriotic American that is personally hurt every time I hear about it, I prey America can get through the next two years so we can start new on restoring what we once had. What does everyone think about this topic.

If this is true then Bush has circumvented the Constitution and should be impeached. Why then is there no serious move to impeach him? It might also help if you can cite the "internal prevention measures" that Bush has broken down.

-z

[MilwaukeeMike]

If this is true then Bush has circumvented the Constitution and should be impeached. Why then is there no serious move to impeach him? It might also help if you can cite the "internal prevention measures" that Bush has broken down.

-z

Well, when you talk of impeachment, I feel that what Bush has done is far worse than Bill Clinton getting a BJ in the oval office. Of course he did lie under oath, but didn't Bush lie to the entire country about Iraq. Secondly, here is your answer to the "internal prevention measures" question.

"There is a settled belief in Washington today that not only has the Bush administration bungled democracy in Iraq, it is shredding it at home as well. Not only did the administration destroy the interagency process inside the executive branch—especially in the first term, when Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ignored national-security adviser Condi Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell while the president stood by—it has rendered moot the legislative checks and balances intended by the Founding Fathers, as well—the kind that are supposed to prevent monumentally stupid blunders."
Michael Hirsh, Newsweek/MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16815916/site/newsweek/

[WildCat]

Under the actual article, the fine print states that it is alright to reproduce this article when full credit is given to "Fred Foldvary and The Progress Report." Which I gave credit too and posted his website. I do not see any other problems with this.

Never mind.

[Cylinder]

Are you claiming that the President's advisers were installed in an extra-constitutional manner? I seem to remember confirmation hearings.

[Darat]

America has an empire to lose? They've kept that bloody quiet. Bit of advice for any USA readers - they're not worth the hassle you never hear the end of it.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Are you claiming that the President's advisers were installed in an extra-constitutional manner? I seem to remember confirmation hearings.

No, what I am saying that Bush has managed to decay our democracy and put us on a path that will eventually end our world dominance that we have enjoyed for years; just in the past 6 years, in my opinion. I am not saying that he or anyone else in the Whitehouse were unconstitutionally brought into office.

[MilwaukeeMike]

America has an empire to lose? They've kept that bloody quiet. Bit of advice for any USA readers - they're not worth the hassle you never hear the end of it.

I think its hard not to argue that the United States doesn't have an Empire.

Overseas
As of 2003, the United States occupied military bases in 130 different countries.[8] Some of the largest contingents are:

Germany 69,395
Japan (United States Forces Japan) 35,307
South Korea (United States Forces Korea) 32,744
Italy 12,258
United Kingdom 11,093

As of mid- 2006, nearly 150,000 U.S. troops are currently deployed in the Middle East. Most of these forces are currently engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military#Personnel_deployed

If that isn't evidence of an Empire, what is.

[WildCat]

America has an empire to lose? They've kept that bloody quiet.
You've never heard of American East Africa? Or American Equatorial Guinea? Or American Honduras?

[WildCat]

If that isn't evidence of an Empire, what is.
You might want to look up the definition (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/empire).

[Grammatron]

I think its hard not to argue that the United States doesn't have an Empire.

Overseas
As of 2003, the United States occupied military bases in 130 different countries.[8] Some of the largest contingents are:

Germany 69,395
Japan (United States Forces Japan) 35,307
South Korea (United States Forces Korea) 32,744
Italy 12,258
United Kingdom 11,093

As of mid- 2006, nearly 150,000 U.S. troops are currently deployed in the Middle East. Most of these forces are currently engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military#Personnel_deployed

If that isn't evidence of an Empire, what is.

Define an Empire as you understand it.

[Darat]

I think its hard not to argue that the United States doesn't have an Empire.

Overseas
As of 2003, the United States occupied military bases in 130 different countries.[8] Some of the largest contingents are:

Germany 69,395
Japan (United States Forces Japan) 35,307
South Korea (United States Forces Korea) 32,744
Italy 12,258
United Kingdom 11,093

As of mid- 2006, nearly 150,000 U.S. troops are currently deployed in the Middle East. Most of these forces are currently engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military#Personnel_deployed

If that isn't evidence of an Empire, what is.

Well that isn't! :)

A sign of an empire is when it has control of many, many countries and/or territories and whilst the USA has immense influence it has control of only arguably a handful of countries (and the UK probably has more even though we no longer have an Empire) .

[MilwaukeeMike]

You might want to look up the definition (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/empire).

From your very definition that you thought I should know.

"b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control"

I would say that having military bases in over 130 countries and tens of thousands of troops in major European and Asian countries exerts the some level of political and military dominance. Just because the United States does not rule all these countries does not conclude it isn't an empire; we still have very strong political and military influence, which can constitute an empire. That brings me back to my point, is it in decline?

[cbish]

I thought empires declined because of orgies, homosexuals, and anal sex.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Well that isn't! :)

A sign of an empire is when it has control of many, many countries and/or territories and whilst the USA has immense influence it has control of only arguably a handful of countries (and the UK probably has more even though we no longer have an Empire) .

I think you're absolutely wrong in your opinion of what an empire is. The fact is that empires of today do not follow the traditional school of thought that we saw with, say the Roman Empire. Countries just do not rule the immense amount of foreigners that old empires did. The combination of worldwide military bases, a military that currently cannot be matched, and an economy that leads the world; puts the United States in a position where I would say they have some form of an empire.

[Overman]

I thought empires declined because of orgies, homosexuals, and anal sex.


Vomitoriums. Where are all the vomitoriums of this American Empire!

[WildCat]

From your very definition that you thought I should know.

"b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control"

I would say that having military bases in over 130 countries and tens of thousands of troops in major European and Asian countries exerts the some level of political and military dominance. Just because the United States does not rule all these countries does not conclude it isn't an empire; we still have very strong political and military influence, which can constitute an empire. That brings me back to my point, is it in decline?
Did you miss the part where it was "under single domination or control? The US or its military does not control any of the countries it has bases in.

[WildCat]

Vomitoriums. Where are all the vomitoriums of this American Empire!
You've never been to the restrooms in Wrigley Field?

[MilwaukeeMike]

Well that isn't! :)

A sign of an empire is when it has control of many, many countries and/or territories and whilst the USA has immense influence it has control of only arguably a handful of countries (and the UK probably has more even though we no longer have an Empire) .

Also what gives the United States the empire category, is not if we have control of any one country. But that we can take control of any one country if we see fit. Iraq!?! This brings me right back the my first post in which I think Bush did the wrong thing by using this power to go into Iraq. The U.S. has an empire because of it's ability to exert this power and influence any where in the world, and actually back it up. I do not think Britain or any other country, currently, can say that. I don't understand why I am getting such strong opposition on this.

[WildCat]

I think you're absolutely wrong in your opinion of what an empire is. The fact is that empires of today do not follow the traditional school of thought that we saw with, say the Roman Empire. Countries just do not rule the immense amount of foreigners that old empires did. The combination of worldwide military bases, a military that currently cannot be matched, and an economy that leads the world; puts the United States in a position where I would say they have some form of an empire.
You're just changing the definition to something it's not.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Did you miss the part where it was "under single domination or control? The US or its military does not control any of the countries it has bases in.

Why do you think multiple definitions are given. Words can be defined in many different ways, and you are trying to define one with an antiquated definition that has no fit in the current 21st century situation. I believe the definition I used better explains the current situation.

[WildCat]

Why do you think multiple definitions are given. Words can be defined in many different ways, and you are trying to define one with an antiquated definition that has no fit in the current 21st century situation. I believe the definition I used better explains the current situation.
The US doesn't have an empire by any dictionary definition, so you made up your own definition. It doesn't work that way...

[Darth Rotor]

After the collapse of the Soviet realm, the American empire expanded into middle and eastern Europe under the rubric of NATO. The last obstacle to American dominance in Europe was Serbia, and the Clinton administration fought the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo to crush this futile resistance to American might.
He ignores the pleas of the Germans, and other major European nations, for help in solving their "refugee problem" that began in about 1992 during the Yugoslavian War, and which UN tried, but failed, to resolve.


The current war in Iraq really started with the first Gulf War and continued under Clinton with bombings and trade barriers.
I concur. A good discussion of this can be found in On Point (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/onpoint/preface.htm).
The current stage of the war in Iraq can be seen as an expansion of the American empire into the heart of the Middle East, eliminating a tyrant who defied American dominance.
Thje US expanded its influence in the PG/ME while the Cold War was still on, as a reaction to the 1973 oil embargo. This author plays a curious game with history.
Afghanistan too is now under American dominance.
The average Pushtun would beg to differ.
Israel, of course, has long been an American ally in the Middle East. Nice platitude, it began as a client. The ally game seems to be rather one way, at least to the US taxpayer. :p
The states defying American dominance now include China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Burma.
Burma, striking fear into the hearts of farmers of the corn belt. :eek:
Cuba especially rankles the U.S. chiefs because it was part of the original U.S. 1898 expansion and got away.
OK, US gets Cuba from Spain, and it becomes independent in what year? 1902. Platt amendment considered, 1908 is probably a better start date. Leonard Wood and the Progressives for fifty, Alex. :p The Cuba issue was a subset of the Cold War game of Empire the Russians and Americans played.
Perhaps some of this could be excused during the Cold War, but after 1990 there would have been no intellectual rational for empire building if the Muslim supremacists had not provided one in 9/11/2001.
???? He mentioned the reaching into the Stans and Eastern Europe in his opening. ?????
The American empire is bipartisan. Both Democrats and Republicans have expanded the empire. Only the minor parties, such as the Greens and Libertarians, fundamentally oppose the American empire. Many Americans don't like the empire, but they maintain it by voting for the major party they think is the lesser evil. We now hear the mantra, 'anyone but Bush.' The chiefs of empire laugh, because the greatest expansion of the American empire was under 'progressive' Democrats such as Wilson and Truman. The U.S. Constitution was designed to limit empire building, but like the requirement for Congress to declare war, the safeguards of the Constitution are ignored by both parties.
OK, how soon is he going to mention NWO?
. . .so too will the American empire eventually fall to internal decay and external over-expansion unless Americans support a political party that will let go the empire. "
Fred E. Foldvary, Progress Report 2004
His suggestion is who, the Greens or the Libertarians? Ross Perot?
The question here is; has the United States hit its apex of power and might?
Yes, that was about 1991. Where has Fred Been?
Who is to blame for this?
You, Fred, since you didn't get yourself elected President cum Emperor. You bloody slacker. :p
The biggest question of all is how are we (Americans) going to let this happen?
Given the proclivity for the average American to be a sheep, easily.
Or are we going to go out in a blaze of glory fighting China in World War 3?
That would make a better movie than the alternative.
Of course back to my title where I reference Bush; I personally believe he has played a huge role in not only destroying our the fragile positive international opinion we had, but has so defiled what the founding fathers put into place to prevent people like Mr. Bush from obtaining the power he has had, that he has broken down the internal prevention measures that made America what it was.
Yep, the recent FISA ruling, and BushCo backing down, and the SCOTUS slap down over some of the Gitmo issues is a sure sign of erosion.
People around the world now view America as a country that threatens international peace instead of preserving it.
I hear the Philippines hate it that we support their efforts against Islamists in their south. :p The Japs are screaming at our BMD for their home islands.
As a patriotic American that is personally hurt every time I hear about it, I prey America can get through the next two years so we can start new on restoring what we once had.
Fred, you can't go back, but you can go forward. Cleaning out some of the pointless gun control nonsense of the past 10 years, the patriot act, and defending the border would be a nice start. So would an improved energy policy, whre for 34 years Ostrich has been the word of the day.

Oh, wait, Fred had no call for action beyond his platitude.

Windbag.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Vomitoriums. Where are all the vomitoriums of this American Empire!
Each McDonald's restaurant.

DR

[MilwaukeeMike]

He ignores the pleas of the Germans, and other major European nations, for help in solving their "refugee problem" that began in about 1992 during the Yugoslavian War, and which UN tried, but failed, to resolve.



I concur. A good discussion of this can be found in On Point (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/onpoint/preface.htm).

Thje US expanded its influence in the PG/ME while the Cold War was still on, as a reaction to the 1973 oil embargo. This author plays a curious game with history.

The average Pushtun would beg to differ.
Nice platitude, it began as a client. The ally game seems to be rather one way, at least to the US taxpayer. :p

Burma, striking fear into the hearts of farmers of the corn belt. :eek:

OK, US gets Cuba from Spain, and it becomes independent in what year? 1902. Platt amendment considered, 1908 is probably a better start date. Leonard Wood and the Progressives for fifty, Alex. :p The Cuba issue was a subset of the Cold War game of Empire the Russians and Americans played.

???? He mentioned the reaching into the Stans and Eastern Europe in his opening. ?????

OK, how soon is he going to mention NWO?

Fred E. Foldvary, Progress Report 2004
His suggestion is who, the Greens or the Libertarians? Ross Perot?

Yes, that was about 1991. Where has Fred Been?

You, Fred, since you didn't get yourself elected President cum Emperor. You bloody slacker. :p

Given the proclivity for the average American to be a sheep, easily.

That would make a better movie than the alternative.

Yep, the recent FISA ruling, and BushCo backing down, and the SCOTUS slap down over some of the Gitmo issues is a sure sign of erosion.

I hear the Philippines hate it that we support their efforts against Islamists in their south. :p The Japs are screaming at our BMD for their home islands.

Fred, you can't go back, but you can go forward. Cleaning out some of the pointless gun control nonsense of the past 10 years, the patriot act, and defending the border would be a nice start. So would an improved energy policy, whre for 34 years Ostrich has been the word of the day.

Oh, wait, Fred had no call for action beyond his platitude.

Windbag.

DR


Fred wrote the article that I quoted. Just to clear that up.

[MilwaukeeMike]

The US doesn't have an empire by any dictionary definition, so you made up your own definition. It doesn't work that way...

I didn't make up a definition; I used one of the alternatives your link listed. How is that making up a definition. You are doing the exact same thing by saying the definition you used is god and mine isn't. Lets move beyond the argument about a single word. Whether Wildcat agrees or not, the United States has immense global influence and power (I prefer to call it an empire). Not to mention the large military base holdings (130 countries) and troop deployments. I feel it is in decline because of Bush and his actions at home and abroad.

[sackett]

All of you fellers piling on MilwaukeeMike that way, I've got just two words to say to you:

Puerto Rico

Hah! How do you like THEM muffins?

[MilwaukeeMike]

All of you fellers piling on MilwaukeeMike that way, I've got just two words to say to you:

Puerto Rico

Hah! How do you like THEM muffins?

Guam too.

[sackett]

Guam too.

Well, there you are. 'S nuff empire fer ME.

[Patsy]

Guam too.

The US Virgin Islands

[Darth Rotor]

All of you fellers piling on MilwaukeeMike that way, I've got just two words to say to you:

Puerto Rico

Hah! How do you like THEM muffins?
As soon as enough of those folks vote to get off of the dole, Puerto Rico has all the chance in the world to become yet another fine, failed Caribbean nation state. Funny thing is, the Puerto Rican nacionalistas have trouble getting the independence movement underway. I think a drive for statehood is a bit more likely, but that too has its hazards.

Roosevelt Roads, the Naval Base, was shut down. All our base (there) are belong to Puerto Rico. :)

DR

[Grammatron]

All of you fellers piling on MilwaukeeMike that way, I've got just two words to say to you:

Puerto Rico

Hah! How do you like THEM muffins?

The citizen of Puerto Rico are ok with their status seeing as how they voted for it on multiple occasion. Hardly a trademark of a colony.

[Ziggurat]

And are we now in decline because of irresponsible use of our military, and overwhelmingly strong anti-American sentiment raging across the world?

Yes, we're in a death spiral. Foreigners are no longer trying to immigrate to the US, and recent immigrants are now trying to return to their countries of origin en masse. The border security fence, designed to keep Texans from fleeing south, will soon be overrun. Collapse is imminent, I tell you!
:scarper:

[Darth Rotor]

Fred wrote the article that I quoted. Just to clear that up.
Got it. I think Fred's a windbag, not you.

ETA: different Fred, sorry.

DR

[Giz]

Also what gives the United States the empire category, is not if we have control of any one country. But that we can take control of any one country if we see fit. ... [snip]... The U.S. has an empire because of it's ability to exert this power and influence any where in the world, and actually back it up. I do not think Britain or any other country, currently, can say that. I don't understand why I am getting such strong opposition on this.

1) Having the power to - potentially - invade and colonise other countries doesn't make you an Empire. Just like a sports car isn't speeding while it's parked in the driveway.

2) So basically you're saying that just having a big economy, and a robust cultural influence (Hollywood, MTV etc - arguably a byproduct of a strong free economy) make you an oppressive colonial force? How can this evil be countered (other than by the US destroying it's economy until it is as prosperous as, say, Albania)?

[MilwaukeeMike]

1) Having the power to - potentially - invade and colonise other countries doesn't make you an Empire. Just like a sports car isn't speeding while it's parked in the driveway.

2) So basically you're saying that just having a big economy, and a robust cultural influence (Hollywood, MTV etc - arguably a byproduct of a strong free economy) make you an oppressive colonial force? How can this evil be countered (other than by the US destroying it's economy until it is as prosperous as, say, Albania)?

What I was trying to tell Wildcat and will explain again is that the traditional since of an empire isn't so anymore. Too many world factors will prevent any one country from having a Roman style empire, where they actually control each group of people. What the United States has now is what I think is a "new world empire."

[Darth Rotor]

1) Having the power to - potentially - invade and colonise other countries doesn't make you an Empire. Just like a sports car isn't speeding while it's parked in the driveway.

2) So basically you're saying that just having a big economy, and a robust cultural influence (Hollywood, MTV etc - arguably a byproduct of a strong free economy) make you an oppressive colonial force? How can this evil be countered (other than by the US destroying it's economy until it is as prosperous as, say, Albania)?
For what it's worth, the meme on America as Empire has some variations. One of them is that the Empire began in 1865, and that occupied territories include Georgia, Virginia, the Carolinas, Texas, etc.

Another is the "Imperialist Running Dod" meme of the Communist rhetoric fame.

Another is the NWO model, with UN as an Empire proxy force, black helicopters, blah blah blah.

One should be curious regarding root and branch when it comes to commenters on America as Empire. My own spin, circa 1993, was that if you looked at the American CINCdoms as described in the Combatant Commands, if they were not a form of empire, or hegemonic influence, they were damned close.

Russel Mead's illustration of "American Hegemony" is probably the best neutral look at the case in point. I refer to his book Special Providence.

DR

[AWPrime]

What the US has is a Hegemony, which is basicly a soft empire.

And that can be lost.

[Giz]

What I was trying to tell Wildcat and will explain again is that the traditional since of an empire isn't so anymore. Too many world factors will prevent any one country from having a Roman style empire, where they actually control each group of people. What the United States has now is what I think is a "new world empire."

I will help you out. You see Darth Rotor's post? It has the word "hegemon" in it. That is an accurate description of American power and influence. The "Empire" tag is just an attempt to use an emotive word (ooh - evil empire) in an attempt to manipulate emotions. Dude, just use the perfectly good word that already exists.

Also, I didn't want to cherry pick howlers in your/Fred's argument but:
" As of 2003, the United States occupied military bases in 130 different countries.[8] Some of the largest contingents are:
...
United Kingdom 11,093 "

Are you/Fred going to contend that UK Government policies are swayed (let alone determined - as they would be by an "Empire") by the presence of those troops?

The passage:
"After the collapse of the Soviet realm, the American empire expanded into middle and eastern Europe under the rubric of NATO. The last obstacle to American dominance in Europe was Serbia, and the Clinton administration fought the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo to crush this futile resistance to American might. "

was pretty funny too. (Clinton, grinding the last defenders of freedom under his Imperial jackboot.) Honestly, I know you credited Fred as a source but if I went to his page are you sure you wouldn't find him crediting The Onion?

[Darth Rotor]

What the US has is a Hegemony, which is basicly a soft empire.

And that can be lost.
So, the Pax Americana has become the Americus Flaciddus? :eek: Oh dear, someone call Pfizer!

DR

[MilwaukeeMike]

I will help you out. You see Darth Rotor's post? It has the word "hegemon" in it. That is an accurate description of American power and influence. The "Empire" tag is just an attempt to use an emotive word (ooh - evil empire) in an attempt to manipulate emotions. Dude, just use the perfectly good word that already exists.

Also, I didn't want to cherry pick howlers in your/Fred's argument but:
" As of 2003, the United States occupied military bases in 130 different countries.[8] Some of the largest contingents are:
...
United Kingdom 11,093 "

Are you/Fred going to contend that UK Government policies are swayed (let alone determined - as they would be by an "Empire") by the presence of those troops?

The passage:
"After the collapse of the Soviet realm, the American empire expanded into middle and eastern Europe under the rubric of NATO. The last obstacle to American dominance in Europe was Serbia, and the Clinton administration fought the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo to crush this futile resistance to American might. "

was pretty funny too. (Clinton, grinding the last defenders of freedom under his Imperial jackboot.) Honestly, I know you credited Fred as a source but if I went to his page are you sure you wouldn't find him crediting The Onion?

Darth brought up a very good point. As far as the UK is concerned, during the Tony Blair era, he seemed to almost follow Bush step by step with issues regarding Iraq. Now, by no means am I saying their is any connection to U.S. troops in the UK. But the UK and US are very close allies, in which it seems the U.S. always gets its way between them. Obviously, there are many other factors when you mention the US - UK relationship. Perhaps the closeness is due to the fact that America is the child of the UK. And the troops being stationed there, in my opinion, serve more of a symbolic purpose than anything else.

[MilwaukeeMike]

I will help you out. You see Darth Rotor's post? It has the word "hegemon" in it. That is an accurate description of American power and influence. The "Empire" tag is just an attempt to use an emotive word (ooh - evil empire) in an attempt to manipulate emotions. Dude, just use the perfectly good word that already exists.

Also, I didn't want to cherry pick howlers in your/Fred's argument but:
" As of 2003, the United States occupied military bases in 130 different countries.[8] Some of the largest contingents are:
...
United Kingdom 11,093 "

Are you/Fred going to contend that UK Government policies are swayed (let alone determined - as they would be by an "Empire") by the presence of those troops?

The passage:
"After the collapse of the Soviet realm, the American empire expanded into middle and eastern Europe under the rubric of NATO. The last obstacle to American dominance in Europe was Serbia, and the Clinton administration fought the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo to crush this futile resistance to American might. "

was pretty funny too. (Clinton, grinding the last defenders of freedom under his Imperial jackboot.) Honestly, I know you credited Fred as a source but if I went to his page are you sure you wouldn't find him crediting The Onion?

I was also using the word empire because I could not remember the term that Darth used. But what I was saying was similar to what Darth explained. Though he did it much more clearly and precise.

[Darth Rotor]

Perhaps the closeness is due to the fact that America is the child of the UK. And the troops being stationed there, in my opinion, serve more of a symbolic purpose than anything else.
The purposes are twofold. It is very simple.

Command and Control functions tied to the NATO alliance

Logistics

The special relationship between US and UK has another key ingredient: intelligence sharing on a level no one else gets.

DR

[MilwaukeeMike]

The purposes are twofold. It is very simple.

Command and Control functions tied to the NATO alliance

Logistics

The special relationship between US and UK has another key ingredient: intelligence sharing on a level no one else gets.

DR


Its amazing how once upon a time people living here in the United States, before it was actually a country, absolutely hated England and everything to do with it. Yet a mere few hundred years later, the UK is one of the United States strongest allies. Funny how things change.

[Darth Rotor]

Its amazing how once upon a time people living here in the United States, before it was actually a country, absolutely hated England and everything to do with it. Yet a mere few hundred years later, the UK is one of the United States strongest allies. Funny how things change.
Yes, history moves forward. Sixty three years ago, the Japanese were our blood enemies, and we sided with the Chinese against them. They are now our buddies, somewhat, versus China.

DR

[Tony]

Oh man, I hope we don't lose all our colonies!

In America, they're called states, and all but the original 13 represent American imperialism, expansionism and conquest. Mind you, I'm not making a moral judgement here, just saying.

[fuelair]

America has an empire to lose? They've kept that bloody quiet. Bit of advice for any USA readers - they're not worth the hassle you never hear the end of it.
And look what so many of yours turned into after you were forced by circumstance to leave them to their own devices. (Not your fault, they wanted you out!)

[The Painter]

My God!!! Look at America. What a horrible country it is. I think we should just stop being the horrible country we are and turn ourselves over to Canada. The US government is obviously bad, so let’s shut it down and let Canada take over.

[AWPrime]

Has the American hegemony gone into decline? I think it has.

For me it is more interesting to think of the possible impact of such a loss to the USA and its culture.

[Darth Rotor]

My God!!! Look at America. What a horrible country it is. I think we should just stop being the horrible country we are and turn ourselves over to Canada. The US government is obviously bad, so let’s shut it down and let Canada take over.
Only if they replace all Miller Lite with Moosehead.

DR

[Mike B.]

In America, they're called states, and all but the original 13 represent American imperialism, expansionism and conquest. Mind you, I'm not making a moral judgement here, just saying.

Louisana Purchase?

Purchase of Alaska?

States like Vermont that were carved out of territory given up by Britian in the Treaty of Paris?

Or are you just trying to show off how cool and subversive you are?

[Tony]

Louisana Purchase?

Purchase of Alaska?

States like Vermont that were carved out of territory given up by Britian in the Treaty of Paris?

Or are you just trying to show off how cool and subversive you are?

Dude, STFU. Come back when you're ready to be an adult.

[a_unique_person]

You've never heard of American East Africa? Or American Equatorial Guinea? Or American Honduras?

It's a kind of 20th century 'empire'. Why does the USA struggle to field more than 200,000 troops in Iraq, when it has far more troops than that scattered around the world? It doesn't want to lose those bases. WTF is the point of base in Italy, for instance? I have read plenty of approving posts about the usefulness of nuclear powered aircraft carriers in projecting power around the globe.

http://www.libsci.sc.edu/bob/class/clis734/webguides/milbase.htm

That's a lot of military power.

[a_unique_person]

My God!!! Look at America. What a horrible country it is. I think we should just stop being the horrible country we are and turn ourselves over to Canada. The US government is obviously bad, so let’s shut it down and let Canada take over.

Being the sole superpower is a two edged sword. As Dubya so clearly displayed, it's pretty easy for a fool to abuse that power. Any country in that situation would be tempted, it's not an 'american' trait, it's a human one.

[Francesca R]

It's a kind of 20th century 'empire'.I think of it as an "informal empire". Certainly not a colonial one. Britain was a massive exporter of people and capital in the Victorian era of imperial expansion. America is the opposite today. Imperial Britain grew out of a long culture of land-grab and conquest. America was "born" fighting British colonial oppression.

The US does not have an empire in the same mould as the past. I think Robert Cooper calls it a "post-modern empire". History is neither repeating nor moving backwards.

Yes it can decline. Why not?

[The Painter]

... Perhaps the closeness is due to the fact that America is the child of the UK. ...

Perhaps the closeness is because we fought side by side in WWII against a Nazi régime that was trying to create an empire.


Dude, STFU. Come back when you're ready to be an adult.

A very adult response, so thought out and cogent.

[Darth Rotor]

It's a kind of 20th century 'empire'. Why does the USA struggle to field more than 200,000 troops in Iraq, when it has far more troops than that scattered around the world? It doesn't want to lose those bases. WTF is the point of base in Italy, for instance?
Logistics.

Command and control funcitons.

Geographic proximity to NATO's Southern Region, a critical European security area.

Why there are still land forces in Germany I am not so sure, but part of it is Germany's reluctance to send their troops into harms way. Afghanistan has shown that this is changing.

Bring the boys home from Germany.

DR

[WildCat]

Bring the boys home from Germany.

DR
I thought this too, but it seems that every time a US serviceman is seriously wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan he is taken to a military hospital in Germany. So that hospital seems to be an important asset for us, at least.

[Tony]

A very adult response, so thought out and cogent.

One good flame deserves another. Obviously, that point was missed on you, and after the idiocy you demonstrated in regards to Elian, I'm not surprised.

Perhaps the closeness is because we fought side by side in WWII against a Nazi régime that was trying to create an empire.

Indeed. It was Churchill who, during WW2, coined the phrase "special relationship" to describe relations between the US and the UK. Although, ultimately, the closeness of the US and the UK goes back further than WWII, the fight against the Nazi solidified said relationship.

[Ziggurat]

Why there are still land forces in Germany I am not so sure, but part of it is Germany's reluctance to send their troops into harms way. Afghanistan has shown that this is changing.

I'm not sure it is. Germany has been reluctant to let their troops in Afghanistan have any actual combat role.

Bring the boys home from Germany.

Damned straight. Or move them to Poland. They'd be more useful and more appreciated there than in Germany.

[Gurdur]

I'm not sure it is. Germany has been reluctant to let their troops in Afghanistan have any actual combat role.
Not honest. Germany has one entire sector of Afghanistan, in the north; you are referring to reluctance to let those troops be used in southern Afghanistan. German troops in the northern sector have a combat role, so bluntly, you're not telling the facts as they are.
Damned straight. Or move them to Poland. They'd be more useful and more appreciated there than in Germany.
* oh yawn* * more American supremacist emo, huh? *

Feeling all underappreciated and underworshipped again, huh? For your information, you have all your facts wrong yet again. Rumsfeld was the one to threaten Germany with pulling out all American troops from their bases there, as a punishment for the lack of German governmental support for Iraq2; Germany was shown to be right on Iraq2, :D , and indeed many American troops were withdrawn from Germany. Face it, pretty much all that could be withdrawn from Germany already has been, so maybe you had better catch up with the news.
:p

BTW, what's left of American bases in Germany now comprise excellent medical facilities for second-line treatment of American casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan. No skin off anyone else's nose if you wanted to suddenly relocate that all to Poland completely unnecessarily and at the American taxpayer's expense, but in the name of sanity and rational self-interest you might like to reconsider.

[Darth Rotor]

Not honest. Germany has one entire sector of Afghanistan, in the north; you are referring to reluctance to let those troops be used in southern Afghanistan. German troops in the northern sector have a combat role, so bluntly, you're not telling the facts as they are.

* oh yawn* * more American supremacist emo, huh? *

Feeling all underappreciated and underworshipped again, huh? For your information, you have all your facts wrong yet again. Rumsfeld was the one to threaten Germany with pulling out all American troops from their bases there, as a punishment for the lack of German governmental support for Iraq2; Germany was shown to be right on Iraq2, :D , and indeed many American troops were withdrawn from Germany. Face it, pretty much all that could be withdrawn from Germany already has been, so maybe you had better catch up with the news.
:p

BTW, what's left of American bases in Germany now comprise excellent medical facilities for second-line treatment of American casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan. No skin off anyone else's nose if you wanted to suddenly relocate that all to Poland completely unnecessarily and at the American taxpayer's expense, but in the name of sanity and rational self-interest you might like to reconsider.
There is still a heavy division based in Germany. It is called the First Armored Division (http://www.1ad.army.mil/).

DR

[Beerina]

"Empires eventually collapse as they become weakened by war or internal tyranny. The British Empire was weakened by the world wars, and imperialism lost popular support.

Empires thrive when they keep the trade routes open. They collapse when they turn to lording over their own people instead.

America is increasing worldwide trade, and fighting tooth-and-nail massive, crushing regulations such as Kyoto. (The economy doesn't care why it's crushed. It just dies even under the best of regulating intentions.) Therefore we may predict the American "empire", which is really the worldwide economy with free trade, is stronger than ever and growing rapidly.

[AWPrime]

Empires thrive when they keep the trade routes open. They collapse when they turn to lording over their own people instead.

America is increasing worldwide trade, and fighting tooth-and-nail massive, crushing regulations such as Kyoto. (The economy doesn't care why it's crushed. It just dies even under the best of regulating intentions.) Therefore we may predict the American "empire", which is really the worldwide economy with free trade, is stronger than ever and growing rapidly.
Even as globalisation is going slower and may even refocus on another nation?

[Francesca R]

Empires thrive when they keep the trade routes open. They collapse when they turn to lording over their own people instead.I think the British empire was a huge stimulator of trade. Probably many states would not be trading (or not trading nearly so much) with the world today were it not for that empire. I think the British empire broke up largely because of a "crisis of conscience" (as well as the economic cost crippling Britain eventually). It was a reduction in the propensity of Britain to lord it over the colonies (abandoning African slave ships etc . . .) that stripped away the legitimacy of the empire, not a tightening of that propensity.

America is increasing worldwide trade, and fighting tooth-and-nail massive, crushing regulations such as Kyoto. (The economy doesn't care why it's crushed. It just dies even under the best of regulating intentions.)America has plenty of protectionist, trade-stifling credentials. Not unlike most other states which act in their self-interest. Indeed, because America has less to fear (militarily) than any other country,then it could easily decide to be more anti-competitive.

Therefore we may predict the American "empire", which is really the worldwide economy with free trade, is stronger than ever and growing rapidly.You write as though America invented free trade. Free trade has been around several centuries longer than America. Britain forced its colonies to trade with it. That is usually regarded as a bad thing these days, but it's not obvious that those same countries would be enjoying the gains of trade today without the legacy of historical coercion

[Ziggurat]

Not honest. Germany has one entire sector of Afghanistan, in the north; you are referring to reluctance to let those troops be used in southern Afghanistan. German troops in the northern sector have a combat role, so bluntly, you're not telling the facts as they are.

So they have a combat role in the north, where there's basically no combat. Quite impressive, really. I have no doubt that the german soldiers in Afghanistan are plenty brave, but their political leaders are cowards.

* oh yawn* * more American supremacist emo, huh? *

What's an emo?

Feeling all underappreciated and underworshipped again, huh?

Unappreciated, yes, and nothing you have said indicates that this perception is in any way incorrect. "Underappreciated" requires that we establish a correct level of appreciation, which I have no interest in doing with you.

For your information, you have all your facts wrong yet again. Rumsfeld was the one to threaten Germany with pulling out all American troops from their bases there, as a punishment for the lack of German governmental support for Iraq2; Germany was shown to be right on Iraq2, :D , and indeed many American troops were withdrawn from Germany. Face it, pretty much all that could be withdrawn from Germany already has been, so maybe you had better catch up with the news.
:p

Darth already shot that one down. We indeed have troops we can still pull out of Germany, BESIDES our medical facilities and air bases. And we should withdraw them.