Why the US has to be and should be "imperialist"

[LDiCesare]

I know it is not 19th century and I was being sarcastic, but my parallel is:
The arguments about why the U.S. should be imperialist at the start of this thread are exactly those held by 19th century Europeans (Jules Ferry in France for example). Except Ferry was honest enough to say " well we are more enlightened than them so we can and have a duty to colonize (bla...)" and then say there was also the trade question.
When you see the consequences of imperialism, it really doesn't look like a good idea.

[Arrian]

Pekka's sarcasm-o-meter malfunctioned briefly.

I find it amazing, as a student of history, that with the wealth of historical evidence showing Imperialism to be a bad thing for both the Imperialist and the people/places they take over, people can still manage to ignore it and argue that it's a good idea. We see what we want to see, I guess.

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the US has to be and should be "imperialist"

Originally posted by Trifna


Not at the price US wants it!! They're willing to sell it of course, but not basing on US lobbies' interests.

This is one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard. The price of oil is set by international markets and particularly influence by the futures and related commodities markets in NYMEX.

Talk of war didn't start because oil prices were up, oil prices went up based on market expectations of possible supply disruptions and risk as a result of war. The best way to floor the price of oil isn't to invade Iraq, it's the opposite - just end the UN sanctions and bring Iraqi oil into the marketplace.

[Shi Huangdi]

Well the USA's state of social advancement compared to the rest of the world would definitely be improved if we didn't have moronic nazis like AS in our country.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Well the USA's state of social advancement compared to the rest of the world would definitely be improved if we didn't have moronic nazis like AS in our country.

[Arrian]

Shi

[Ben Kenobi]

As a student of history, I'm amazed that with the wealth of historical evidence showing imperialism to be a good thing for both the imperialists and the imperialised, people can still oppose imperialism.

There are some very good benefits for being an imperial empire. Could Britain have industrialised so quickly without access to large colonial markets for their production? They had a huge surplus of fabricated materials and no local market to sell these goods.
Could they have industrialised without the raw materials required to fabricate some of these products, such as fur, timber, spices, tea, cotton, silk, etc?

As for the imperialised, look at India. One of the benefits of imperialism was an effective railroad system constructed by the British. Another benefit was an improved irrigation system. Together, both of these alleviated famine in India substantially.

Look at my avatar! How could I be anything other than an imperialist? (At least pro-British imperialism).
While they certainly weren't perfect, they were better than the rest, including the Yanks.

And look- why do we speak English here and not some obscure language like Finnish? Thank the British Empire!

[Inverse Icarus]

from a debate i had on my website with my buddies:

this is how the world has ALWAYS been. look at it this way, a complete logic argument.

America is number 1.
Iraq doesn't like America.
Iraq used to have the 4th largest army in the world.
America destroyed most of it.

---

Iraq gets madder.
Iraq is beginning to figure out how to get nukes.

---

Iraq will use nukes.
Nukes make power

---

Iraq is gaining a lot of power
America likes being #1

---

America doesn't like an enemy gaining power

---

America topples the regime.

now seriously, look throughout history. the nation who is #1 in the world goes OUT OF ITS WAY to slow down the others, and the others work their asses off to try and be #1.

IT'S HOW HISTORY WORKS.

England, Spain, France, most of Europa, went to war over colonies half way around the world, because at that time, COLONIES = MASSIVE POWER.

they fought all over the new world and even a few times at home, trying to "slow down" or even "topple" their competitors, and destroy their claim to power.

Now, we don't really need colonies (they help a lil, but whatever). Now, NUKES = MASSIVE POWER.

it's the same scenario with a new measure of power. We are #1 and we dont want someone to rise to power and de-throne us.

IT'S HOW IT WORKS.

and back in the day, I'm sure English people weren't too happy at the Spanish colonization of almost all of south america (save brazil). but in todays age, resisting voices are more readily heard.

in minds and machines, we call this the "Ought from is fallacy", whereas you can say "This is the way it is, therefore this is the way it ought to be". This is a "bad example" in many arguments we are discussing, and i'm assuming you guys will see that, so I'm addressing it.

Ought from is may not be the best way, but thats how it is. If you don't think ought from is applies (or should apply), look at Capitialism vs Communism again, and THEN come back to argue about the strategic regime toppling in America's foriegn policy.

[Drake Tungsten]

Does no one understand the difference between an ethnic nation-state and a state based on an ideology? I'm not saying Speer is right in claiming the latter is superior to the former, but it's seems like most of you are too dense to understand what he's getting at. His statement had nothing to do with how "progressive" the US might be...

[Al B. Sure!]

Drake:

Thank you... i thought my five explanations was enough... I'll try one more time...

Pre-civilized societies was ones founded on family units... clans were divided by blood... a war between paleolithic clan A and clan B was a war between families.

As societies developed into civilizations, these familial clans were extended to include several hundreds of families which composed an ethnic group... they had similiar racial traits and essentially the same culture. these are ethnic or racial nation states.

Most of the world is still at this level. Japan is, and always has been, a nation of Japanese. Japanese people are of the same racial group. Their nation is a racially-based one... that doesn't mean they are racist. It just means that, in many ways, someone can not just become Japanese. There are racial traits associated with being fully accepted into Jap society. again, you can NOT become Japanese...

Some nations 'advanced' to another level. Rome was a multi-national nation. Syrians and Gauls were far different ethnically and culturally but they united into a single, idealogical nation. the idealogy was chiefly one of the idea of Roman authourity though. Anyone could become a roman citizen.

Over time, other such states formed, such as the Ottomon Empire which was also not a racial state but one formed on the idea of a multi-national state.

The United States is the most extreme of such states. the US is far from a racial state being composed of thousands of ethnic groups and religions. We are united, however, in the idea of a diverse multi-nation democratic state where everyone has the potential to succeed.

See the difference? In my opinion, such a state is an improvement from racial states (which are simply an extension of the ancient clan system).


thanks

[red_jon]

So Speer, do you measure how progressive a society is based on tenuous racial issues? What about women and gay rights?

[Al B. Sure!]

red_jon:

maybe an even more advanced level of civilization would be one with women (which, last time i checked, were equal to men in the US) and gay equality... I'm just saying that the US is on a higher level as is than other countries today... of course, some countries may still cling to being racial states but have gender equality or whatever but saying that they are more advanced than the US because of that is like saying 19th century Ethiopian warriors armed with rifles were as advanced as Victorian England


thanks

[orange]

just because a state is more homogenous does not necessarily make it less advanced of a civilization

[Zero]

Originally posted by UberKruX

now seriously, look throughout history. the nation who is #1 in the world goes OUT OF ITS WAY to slow down the others, and the others work their asses off to try and be #1.

This should be obvious, but thanks for making it obvious uber

[Zero]

Originally posted by orange
just because a state is more homogenous does not necessarily make it less advanced of a civilization

no it doesnt. But Speer is saying it makes them Socially less advanced.