Freethought & Rationalism Archive

fanny666 · 02-12-2003, 03:54 PM

Ask the people of East Timor if Jimmy Carter cared more about US arms dealers & oil or Human Rights.

Anyway, lots of people think like DC, and we should educate each other and not insult each other. We all live in the bubble of indoctrination (US foreign policy consists entirely of fighting bad guys and helping old ladies across the street) , it's up to us to get our fellow citizens out.

I don't want to hijack the thread, so I'll start a new one called Middle East Imperialism 101.

But the short answer is a resounding YES.

echidna · 02-12-2003, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by moon
It is good to contrast what the U.S. did with what the USSR did. After WWII, the USSR imposed its style of government on the states it liberated from the Nazis. What did you expect them to do? It did not expand from there, however, and did not seek to install puppet governments around the world. Indeed, at times it even aided national liberation movements, and protected besieged states like Cuba from attack.

Now this is funny. I mean seriously moon, have you checked a political map in the last 10 years. Suggest you do. Post the 1989 collapse of the Soviet Union, have you noticed just how much the geopolitical map of Europe and Asia has changed ? The Baltic States, the Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Belarus, etc etc etc. Holy crap one needs to study a month to even begin to learn the new names & geographies.

And that�s not a sign that the Soviet Union was an Empire ??? Truly there have been few historical events since the collapse of the Roman Empire to parallel this level of geopolitical fragmentation. The ironic thing is that in the various comparisons with the Roman Empire, when the Roman Empire collapsed it arguably produced a decline in living conditions & stability throughout Europe, but when the Soviet Empire collapsed the outcome has mainly been a series of relatively stable market democracies. Exceptions exist, but that�s hardly surprising.

Conversely, should the US economy collapse world living standards would clearly decline as people were thrust into unemployment & market, businesses and industries collapsed as a consequence. Quite a contrast I�d say.

echidna · 02-12-2003, 05:00 PM

So from what I can gather, the US is imperialistic, economically. How so ? By trading with other countries.

Shock horror what an atrocity. So by moon�s definition, the only way to be non-imperialistic is to shove one�s head up one�s own backside & adopt a foreign policy of zero trade. Yup, works for Burma & if they could just shut down that revenue which comes from narcotics, the Burmese people would probably be even more prosperous.

echidna · 02-12-2003, 05:15 PM

Atticus�s parody well illustrates the paradox of imperialism, that sometimes there are actually worse things than imperialism. Compare life for the average resident of Phnom Penh, firstly under the colonial authority of France while it was part of Indochine, or later under the nationalistic & fiercely patriotic Pol Pot. In truth older cities like Hanoi, Vientianne, Phnom Penh are like museums to the past. That when one walks through the streets, many of the most striking buildings are old decaying French buildings contructed during the booming colonial period. Indeed since the communist takeovers of Laos, Cambodia & Vietnam, up till a decade ago it was as though time had stopped & the failure of successive communist regimes is almost tangible as one walks down the decaying streets. Even today many older Indochinese can still speak French & can remember when much of Indochina�s infrastructure was being built, infrastructure very heavily relied on by the communists.

Caverdude · 02-12-2003, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zar
Caverdude,

I just can't follow the idea that the U.S. is somehow different from other empires in any significant way (except, as I said, in terms of its kill power and potential reach), or that whatever differences do exist matter in the least to those who are ruled. It seems to me that the U.S. follows the British model of empire by installing local regimes to run its affairs rather than literally taking and occupying the lands in full. And the "human capital" is part of the booty, which would preculde simply exterminating them all. In the case of the U.S. empire (which is really just the "strong arm" of a loose international corporate empire), little slave children are as much a natural resource as a mine or a forest.

In any case, there is an intense subjugation by the U.S.'s agents in the foreign land. Personally, I don't think it matters one iota that this is how it is arranged -- the result is the same, and in fact makes subjugation somewhat more efficient when a corrupt local government is willing to do the job. Direct occupation is always much more costly and difficult, and people are people, so you can almost always find a greedy, cruel son-of-a-bitch who would much rather sleep with a powerful enemy than defend his people from its ravages.

This is a point well made. I would have to agree with the fact that we have (and still do) prop up corrupt governments for our own interests. This is, I think, the core cause of so much hatred directed against us (Saudi Arabia comes to mind first). Even so, Atticus_Finch also makes a point that I agree with, which is the idea that we at least attempt to promote democratic ideals. There seems to be some problem here with what we idealistically want to do and what our actual actions are. As Atticus noted, we do make mistakes and some of them result in terrible consequences such as Iran and the Shah in the 70's. Regardless of some of the actions of our government, it would be wrong to condemn all of us American citizens for such transgressions. I really believe that generally, we have a core of good minded people who wish only good things for others. I think the big problem is ignorance of the reality of what is going on in the world at large. This is a terrible failing of our educational system and media. It is enlightening to visit sites such as this and get input from the "outside" so to speak.

admice · 02-13-2003, 12:02 PM

I've been doing research the last couple days. Check out the UN site. 139 other countries think Imperialism is bad. The history shows the UN has been disregarded (and the US has been in control behind the scenes to a great degree), but I like the ideals and think they should stop the veto power. Conflicts resolved between nations by diplomacy combined with the people of a country choosing their form of government sounds pretty good to me. do your own research.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-12-2003, 03:54 PM	#31
fanny666 Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Boulder CO Posts: 177	Ask the people of East Timor if Jimmy Carter cared more about US arms dealers & oil or Human Rights. Anyway, lots of people think like DC, and we should educate each other and not insult each other. We all live in the bubble of indoctrination (US foreign policy consists entirely of fighting bad guys and helping old ladies across the street) , it's up to us to get our fellow citizens out. I don't want to hijack the thread, so I'll start a new one called Middle East Imperialism 101. But the short answer is a resounding YES.

02-12-2003, 05:00 PM	#33
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	So from what I can gather, the US is imperialistic, economically. How so ? By trading with other countries. Shock horror what an atrocity. So by moon�s definition, the only way to be non-imperialistic is to shove one�s head up one�s own backside & adopt a foreign policy of zero trade. Yup, works for Burma & if they could just shut down that revenue which comes from narcotics, the Burmese people would probably be even more prosperous.

02-12-2003, 05:15 PM	#34
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Atticus�s parody well illustrates the paradox of imperialism, that sometimes there are actually worse things than imperialism. Compare life for the average resident of Phnom Penh, firstly under the colonial authority of France while it was part of Indochine, or later under the nationalistic & fiercely patriotic Pol Pot. In truth older cities like Hanoi, Vientianne, Phnom Penh are like museums to the past. That when one walks through the streets, many of the most striking buildings are old decaying French buildings contructed during the booming colonial period. Indeed since the communist takeovers of Laos, Cambodia & Vietnam, up till a decade ago it was as though time had stopped & the failure of successive communist regimes is almost tangible as one walks down the decaying streets. Even today many older Indochinese can still speak French & can remember when much of Indochina�s infrastructure was being built, infrastructure very heavily relied on by the communists.

02-13-2003, 12:02 PM	#36
admice Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: S Cal Posts: 327	I've been doing research the last couple days. Check out the UN site. 139 other countries think Imperialism is bad. The history shows the UN has been disregarded (and the US has been in control behind the scenes to a great degree), but I like the ideals and think they should stop the veto power. Conflicts resolved between nations by diplomacy combined with the people of a country choosing their form of government sounds pretty good to me. do your own research.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.