If we had been true to the ideals of the founding fathers, as expressed in declaration and constitution, we would have dropped our imperial practices some time ago.


China is not currently behaving as if it wanted to form an empire. And USA is still a weathy country, in terms of its natural resources and its scientists. If we get back to producing real things instead of producing phony financial paper, we can still be a major and influential nation.

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie

I don't see America as imperialistic, otherwise, many nations would have been assimilated in to the United States. The US doesn't need more land, nor does it desire more land. However, America has been a nation of interventionists, which, in many ways, is just as bad.

But I hardly see what that has to do with the current situation.



When I say "empire" I don't mean in terms of old school empires. I should have clarified. I guess perhaps I meant superpower. In order to be a superpower, all the chips have to be in order. But the most important piece of that puzzle being economically, because if you don't have a strong economy, nothing else can be in place. Gotta fund it somehow, and money is the oil within a nations engine. It's vitally important.

Right now China pretty much owns the United States. America is a trillion dollars in debt and China has billions in surplus. If they are the major exporter to the US, who do we think owns us?



I wholeheartedly agree.

_________________
"Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

Just as a general note. The US has, and is, a traditional empire. Think about it for a quick moment. The constitution sets up a way to include new lands into the government. Further, we've gone from 13 states in 1790 to 50 states by 1959. In the process we've absorbed countless Indian lands, more than half of Mexico, the countries of Texas and California (themselves split from Mexico, though California was never officially recognized I think). Alaska used to belong to Russia. We've also conquered the Kingdom of Hawaii. We controlled the Philipennes, and still control numerous small pacific and caribean islands (most notably, islands like Midway, Guam, and Puerto Rico).

Don't even get me started on where we station troops.

Ours is a traditional land empire, much like Russia, China, Great Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, and so forth. It was during WWII/Cold War that we moved from a conscious grab for land to a conscious domination with economics. Just because we don't think we're an empire doesn't mean we aren't one. Perhaps another good topic for my blog.

Sorry for the off topic diatribe, but this was beginning to rattle my nerves.

Sure, but what does that have to do with being an empire? Imagine how many states we'd have if they all were the size of the original colonies.



True, as did every every single nation in North, Central, and South America.



True, but all that land was purchased. Those lands were bought through treaty.



True, through Hawaiian-born Americans.



At their behest against the tyranny of Spain, for which they are still grateful for to this day.



As does England, France, and the Netherlands.



All treaties through the Status of Forces Agreement.



America is definitely an empire of sorts, but I don't think that necessarily is a bad thing.



Why does it rattle your nerves?

_________________
"Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

Much of what we consider the US was taken by War.

To begin the journey you must look at the Nation called the United States. The territory of course was the result of English Empire building, but it is only after the establishment of the Nation that we can honestly speak about US Empire.

One of our first steps was to conquer Florida (against the direct orders of Congress and the President).

We "bought" the Louisiana Territories from France that had laid claim to the territory through Empire building, but then had to conquer the actual occupants and owners. We did.

We encouraged a section of Mexico to break away and then annexed the land stolen. When Mexico objected the US invaded Mexico and imposed the Treaty of Guadalupe by force, taking what became Arizona, New Mexico and California.

We simply took Oklahoma, all the North West, the Dakotas and most of the mid continent land.

We took Hawaii by force despite having a treaty in place that said we would not.

We bought Alaska from the Russians that had simply taken it in their efforts at Empire building.

If we are honest it certainly looks like the US is not just a very successful Empire Builder but one of the most successful proponents of genocide as a means of expansion.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

The point is we've grown through territorial acquisition. We have a succesful system for territorial enlargement that doesn't bring the empire down, key to building a sustainable empire. Have anything substantive to say other than a sophomoric taunt?




You're kidding, right? You do know how Texas became independent, right? Through war. A war fought by mainly american immigrants to Texas. Ask Santa Anna about that war. Then our good buddy Sam Houston became the second president of the Republic of Texas. Nearly a decade later, Texas was annexed (not purchased) into the US. The people of Texas voted themselves into the US.

California split from Mexico right before the Mexican-American War. We then occupied California. Where was the money?

Alaska was bought. Russia colonized it first, though in a very insignificant way. Of course, when Russia was selling Alaska it also tried to sell us a good chunk of Siberia.

Over a quarter of the US has been directly or indirectly conquered by our troops. The rest (Louisiana Purchase and Alaska) were colonized by others first. Of course, when we got them (especially in Louisiana) we then pushed the natives out, often through violent means. Probably haven't heard of the Sand Creek massacre, have you?



What? Are you so uninformed over our history? You've heard of Dole, right? You know, that fruit company. You know who the first president of Hawaii was after the native monarchy was overthrown? Sanford B. Dole. I'm not saying the kingdom was perfect--it had a lot of problems. Our businessmen added to those problems. Our troops were present at the fall of the kingdom, supposedly to keep the peace and prevent fighting. It looks like that may have actually helped fell the monarch. Oops. Hawaii today is one of the more active sites of secessionist movements in the US.

[

Ah yes, the ever benevolent US. Tell me, if they're so grateful, why did we have to fight the people themselves? Or maybe you're not familiar with the history of the Spanish-American War? Guess what, the Philippines didn't need our help to overthrow Spain. They did it on their own in a revolution from 1896 to roughly 1899. True, we told them our navy would protect them and we'd recognize their independence. And then what happens? Well, we get into a war with them, known now as the Philippine-American War. This is because Spain ceded the philippines to us in 1898, and we decided to not recognize their independence. This was started in 1899, officially ending in 1901, but fighting went on until 1913. We gave them back their full independence after WWII. Why? Maybe because they didn't exactly like being US territory. But who can blame them when we broke our promise?



You know, you claimed that the US isn't imperialistic. It doesn't help your cause to state the existence of other empires as counter-evidence to our empire.


Who is able to station troops in foreign lands? Empires. Think about it for a moment. The fact that we can station troops, as you say through the treaties, is testement to our power as an empire. Sure, it's not traditional power, but during the Cold War our toops' presence in countries like Germany reveal their submission to us.



Then why, why, why did you say



Doesn't it rattle your nerves when people are so clearly and painfully getting basic stuff wrong? From your claim that the US isn't imperialistic to multiple incorrect claims in your latest post to nwr's claim about how the constitution and the founding fathers didn't intend for an empire, my nerves are going to be rattled. But then, maybe you're just fine letting ignorance persist.

Look NJ, could you do us all a favor and either start listening to people here who actually know something about history (pretty much everyone in this thread except you) or start learning some history by actually reading books on the subject.

Hell, you could probably even use Wikipedia, the History Channel, or even some selected Hollywood (and heaven forbid, even foreign) movies to improve your understanding if you approach them cautiously.

You are not going to learn squat if you limit your input to dishonest sources such as WorldNetDaily or the rants of O'Reilly and Limbaugh.

The entire idea of American exceptionalism is a lie, plain and simple. The entire idea that the history of this nation has been nothing but sweetness and light toward all those 'heathen' Indians, Catholic Mexicans, and 'barbarian' Filipinos, has only recently been shown for what it is, a baldface lie.

What's next, a historical defense of slavery concerning how blacks are better off in this nation than if they had remained in Africa (provided they actually survived the Atlantic crossing)?

Every empire in history has one thing in common with each other. Like the Aztec god Huitzilopitchli and the Carthaginian god Baal, empires require death and suffering to feed their high priests and leaders need for power and consequent distraction of the people from actual problems.

Is the US an empire?

If not, then why did the beast require human sacrifice in the past and still today must be fed the bodies of innocents?

At least the Aztecs and Carthaginians were more direct and less hypocritical.

_________________
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

I have no problem with the concept of the U.S. as an Empire. After watching that very excellent documentary, Why We Fight in which the author was asked what the film was about, and answered "The perils of empire. I think the film is ultimately about where America is today, how we got here, and where we are going. For many people, the war in Iraq and the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war seem like a frightening new chapter in the history of U.S. foreign policy. But what I learned in making the film is that where we are today is as much an extension of the past as a departure from it. Since World War II, America has been on a path toward empire. Eisenhower and Washington before him warned us that to build and protect an empire requires standing armies – a permanent military establishment – and that these come to threaten democracy itself. Eisenhower warned of “destroying from within that which you are trying to protect from without.”

I am sober and honest enough to realize that I live in an empire. My concern is whether the place is gonna fall apart and whether I will have to suffer for the sins of my fathers!

_________________
"If I had simply asked what the people wanted, they would have said faster horses."
Henry Ford

Phat, you live in a state that was obtained through conquest. Colorado exists because of empire-building.

There's this peculiar duality in the American psyche when it comes to Empire. Internal expansion--the addition of states and territory on the North American continent--has not been viewed as a foreign policy, but as domestic. External expansion--the conquest of Cuba, the Philippines, and dozens of other islands--has been viewed as foreign policy. This is the empire Eisenhower and Washington most likely were referring to. Of course, if you ask Jefferson, a standing army isn't all that dangerous--at least, compared to banking establishments.

Most people date the beginning of our empire to the Spanish-American War of 1898. Those who know better date it to the 1780s.

ABE: if anyone is wondering why states make up the empire, consider this. Any secession will be met by military force. If Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii, California, or any other state tries to secede the Civil War is clear--they cannot, and will be fought. Empires don't exactly give up their possessions without a fight unless there are extraordinary circumstances (such as helped fell the Roman, Russian, British, French, Mongol, etc empires).

We need to remember that many of the horrors of the world are based on successful examples from the US. Concentration Camps? Reservations. Internal deportation and send them to Siberia? Move them all west of the Mississippi. Send Soviet troops into Poland or Hungary? Send Federal troops into Virginia. Agitate for the Ossetians to break away from Georgia? Remember the Alamo!

Were any of those new practices? Nope. Empires have used such tactics as long as recorded history.

What we need to do though is be honest with ourselves about such behavior and try to recognize it in ourselves as well as others. Once we do that we can begin to question and discuss whether that is the way we want to behave in the future.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

Just to clarify, my comment was intended to be about our meddling in places far removed from the Americas (such as installing the Shah in Iran, taking over from France in Indo-China, etc). I don't doubt that the founding fathers would have approved the expansion in north America.

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie

You know, I'm not sure why you've lately become such a monumental prick, but you have. Why don't you drop the condescending bullshit and just debate the points rather than attacking me? I've said nothing that would warrant your reaction and you know it.



You're very fond of mischaracterizations since I don't listen to or read ANY of those outlets.



And yet you remain here in the most evil nation! The people that espouse this revisionist history are so full of themselves. Put your money where your mouth is and leave. Before you do, find a Navajo or a Hopi, and give them your land, since you don't feel entitled to it.

If you don't do this then you have NO conviction about your white guilt, in which case, don't even bring it up. You just sound like a whiny brat.

Nobody said that America and its doctrine of Manifest Destiny is a story full of roses. The lies you've been told about how it's all a one-sided march by evil men is so far from the truth that you lecturing me about history is absolutely laughable.



The slavery that occurred during colonial times was no different than any other period of slavery in the history of slavery as a whole. It's all horrible. But what you seem unaware of (which is surprising since you're so keen on history) was the fact that Africans enslaved Africans, Europeans enslaved Europeans, Asians enslaved Asians, and so, and so on. Hell, slavery continues to this day in Africa, Europe, Asia, parts of the America's, the Middle East, etc!

Try not to forget that slavery was around a whole lot longer than the British Empire. And definitely don't forget that the people you hate so much were also the very people that sacrificed thousands of themselves to change history. Come on history buff, tell me how evil America is!

As for whether or not descendants of slaves have it better off, evidently they do. Was it worth the slave trade for the people who actually went through it? No, but it happened completely irrespective of you, me, or anyone on this board. We weren't alive and we have NOTHING to do with it. But since you're so hip to history, I'm sure you're well aware of the African country Liberia. Why don't you tell me a little bit of applicable history concerning it in relation to America and the slave trade.



Then become a total isolationist, move to Switzerland, wave a white flag as your official stance on military operations, and turn a blind eye to the suffering of your neighbors.



LOL! Alright, stop with the melodrama. Holy cow!!! You're hilarious!

Drown in your own cynicism, Ang. These forums are just outlets for grumpy whiners to piss and moan. Stop pretending to yourself that prefer good times. It's evident that you, like so many others, are masochists and sadists who prefer a dark world of misery, because it gives your life a purpose.

I'm done here.

Jar, close my account buddy, I won't waste one more minute of life on this nonsense.

To the nice folk on the forum (all 3 of you), it's been a pleasure. Best of luck to you in all your endeavors.

_________________
"Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

No need to close your account. You are of course free to post here or not as you wish.

I personally hope you will stick around.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

Since when do convictions require you to run away from your responsibilities?


All 3 of us think you should show some conviction instead of running away like a whiny brat.

_________________
What we really need to do is fix the public.
-- Jon

I don't think there can be any doubt that the founding fathers approved of and expected expansion into available continental land. In fact the borders of the colonies did not generally have western boundaries 'till they reached the Pacific Ocean. Franklin had as one of his goals while in England to get a Royal Grant of Land in what later became Ohio for just such expansion.

They were though somewhat ambivalent about how that would be carried out, originally seen as a negotiation between the colonists and those living on the land (whether they had a right to sell or not) but later moving towards all that was needed was Royal Permission and the might to take and hold land.

But you also point to a great thing to be discussed. Many of our current problems stem from decisions made under the Eisenhower Administration, the overthrow of the democratic leadership in Iran and in Central America were so easy that President Eisenhower expected that the same would be true in Vietnam.

Even though we had agreed by treaty to respect the results of a nationwide election in Vietnam, Eisenhower went back on the deal and not only recognized the division into North and South Vietnam, but had a weak, corrupt puppet government installed in the South.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950