American Imperialism - Not really imperialistic

[Blibblob]

The US is not an imperialist nation. I hear this over and over again. They dont invade and steal land. That is what imperialism is. Imperialism gets you in a lot of trouble with the UN. The US's imperialism streches only as far to take contol of the country for a short period of time. That is not right, but dont go so far as saying that they are fully an evil imperialist nation.

Economy wise, they are the most selfish imperialistic bastards that ever walked the face of this earth.

[Palmares]

I agree with what you say. You have to realise that many people don't know all the facts, or they are ignorant.

Perhaps it could be said that US is imperialist when they temporarily take over countries for economic gain (but then again, taking over a country can come in many forms, and in the US' case, it is all about economics).

US = I want your money for the US Army

[Pete]

When I call America 'imperialist' I am relating to their economic policies.

[abstractmentality]

imperialism can take different forms. if you look to some of the old aspects of Imperialism during the "scramble for Africa" by europe, you will see a few characteristics: expansion of national territory because of resources &/or prestige, justified, in part, by the idea of a "civilizing mission" (ie Kiplings thought of "white mans burden" ).

now, look into some of the economic policies in the thought of "globalization" and a parallel can be drawn.

look at what will happen in Iraq when the US attacks. it will set up a new puppet government, in which the US will have stable access to a natural resource, almost extending its national territories (what i mean is that the pupper government will basically be an extension of the US government), justified by helping the people of Iraq. i dont know about you, but the parallel line is clear.

(Edited by abstractmentality at 3:30 pm on Feb. 18, 2003)


(Edited by abstractmentality at 9:28 pm on Feb. 18, 2003)

[CruelVerdad]

I just think that the US is a bastard for their international policys. They only care about them (selfish), and they don´t really care about helping other countrys to get out of their economical situation, it´s just propaganda.

[RedComrade]

One must understand that in the days of high speed communications, cruise missiles, and long range bombers it is no longer necessary to employ the imperialist methods of the past. All the U.S does now is through covert ops, cia, etc fund coups or train paramilitaries to remove economic thorns and then puts up a puppet ruler who lets the Americans do as they please. This is direct territorial imperialism in a new form for new times...

[timbaly]

Economic Imperialism IS a form of Imperalism.

[Michael De Panama]

From dictionary.com:

im·pe·ri·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr--lzm)
n.
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

In the globalized post-industrial world, imperialism by expansion of political boundaries has become completely obsolete. It's worth a lot more to have economic dominance than to have dominance over the labels on a map. Either way, consider George's plans for Iraq right now. We'll be invading a nation that has not been found to be of any immediate threat to us, without UN authorization, breaking international law, numerous UN Security Council resolutions, and pissing off nearly everyone on Earth in doing so, simply to exhert our political authority over the nation. Sounds disturbingly kind of similar to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait that led to Desert Storm.

[praxis1966]

I agree with abstract. It's like Omar Epps' character said in the movie Higher Learning: "Just because people aren't out burning crosses in your front lawn doesn't mean it [racism] doesn't exist."

What exactly would you call it when the U.S. corporate autocracy uses every available means at its disposal to "Westernize" country? Our foreign aid is conditional. We don't give money or trade to any country unless we are first allowed to cram CNN and Pepsi down that nation's throat, to say nothing of our military installations.

Most of the time all of this comes without any regard for the laws of the land. Take Saudi Arabia, for example. Prior to the first Persian Gulf conflict, America negotiated with the Saudis the use of Saudi land for its airbases. We pigeon holed them into allowing female service members to drive off-base. While this may seem minor, women were not allowed to drive per Saudi law. The Saudis were most likely fairly annoyed since the majority of their legislation is based on interpretation of the Koran, the most holy of Muslim texts. My personal feelings about the injustice of such a law aside, this is a glaring example of how the U.S. manipulates other populations into subservience.

If this is not neo-colonialism/imperialism, I don't know what is. If you knew what the word imperialism meant, you wouldn't make that kind of an assinine argument. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "The policy of extending and increasing a nation's authority and power by acquiring territories OR by establishing economic and political dominance over other nations." So you see, it is unecessary to differentiate between socio-economic colonialism and land grabbing because both fall under the definition of colonialism.


(Edited by praxis1966 at 1:04 pm on Feb. 19, 2003)

[Pete]

"If this is not neo-colonialism/imperialism, I don't know what is. "

I've developed this theory, well concept, to show the differing phases of Imperialism. The First Cycle Imperialism hit in the years after 1492 when Spain, France and Portugaul (English a little later) rushed to the "New Worlds" to claim land. The Second Cycle Imperialism is marked by Louis XIV making New France a crown colony and the wars the ensue until the end of the 1800's. The Third Cycle Imperialism is what we now witness. No longer are actually settlers sent out to create markets for the Fatherland, but corporations are sent out to produce goods for markets within the Fatherland. That is the biggest difference between the Third Cycle and the First and Second. They also line up with Feudalism, Centralism, and the rise of the Borgeoisie. Fourth Cycle Imperialism will be the spread of Communism to all corners of the globe, liberating the people still under the thumb of the early phases. After the Fourth is finished Imperialism will end into a period of peace and Equality. The 'end of history'.

[Totalitarian]

The US government claims sovereignty over the entire planet. When someone does something they don't like, the americans give them bomb threats.

The empire is still in its infancy, however. Gulf war II will probably be the first stage in a political takeover of the middle east i.e. blatant imperialism.

[praxis1966]

Quote: from Totalitarian on 2:59 pm on Feb. 19, 2003
The US government claims sovereignty over the entire planet. When someone does something they don't like, the americans give them bomb threats.

The empire is still in its infancy, however. Gulf war II will probably be the first stage in a political takeover of the middle east i.e. blatant imperialism.

I shudder to think...

[lacanchita]

Does the United Fruit Company mean anything to you?
nuf said

[Palmares]

I've never liked economics.

I guess all this stuff is pretty obvious with so many countries using the US dollar, and... well... just about anything else that is American.

Just ask a Russian what they think of the McDonalds near Red Square.

Nuf said.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from praxis1966 on 4:32 am on Feb. 19, 2003

Our foreign aid is conditional. We don't give money or trade to any country unless we are first allowed to cram CNN and Pepsi down that nation's throat, to say nothing of our military installations.

(Edited by praxis1966 at 1:04 pm on Feb. 19, 2003)


Don't forget the condition they buy arms from us, thus keeping them war torn, and of little threat.

[Blibblob]

I stand corrected.

Thank you for showing me my ignorance

(Edited by Blibblob at 8:41 pm on Feb. 19, 2003)

[Guardia Bolivariano]

The US might not be a imperialist nation in the present(It certainly was in the past,just ask Mexico).But we can certainly calm then interventionist bastards ,their actions speak for themselves.

[praxis1966]

Quote: from hegemonicretrobution on 6:05 am on Feb. 20, 2003

Quote: from praxis1966 on 4:32 am on Feb. 19, 2003

Our foreign aid is conditional. We don't give money or trade to any country unless we are first allowed to cram CNN and Pepsi down that nation's throat, to say nothing of our military installations.

(Edited by praxis1966 at 1:04 pm on Feb. 19, 2003)


Don't forget the condition they buy arms from us, thus keeping them war torn, and of little threat.


How could I? I know how to spell Iran...
jk. I was simply trying to emphasize the economic aspects of imperialism.

[mentalbunny]

If the U$ goes to war without the UN's approval then it is the beginning of the end of the U$ empire.

[Blibblob]

I agree and hope.

And why doesnt my damn avatar work!!!