Impirialistic?

[Ronin]

We argued a few weeks ago about whether or not the US could be considered imperialistic

Let me know what you think of this

"A nation this strong doesn't need to keep its ambitions secret. Join Vision 2020, freely available on the internet, outlines in considerable detail the Department of Defense plan to 'create a force that is dominant across the full spectrum of military operations - persuasive in peace, decisive in war, preeminent in any form of conflct.' Then there's the widely disseminated Rebuilding America's Defenses, published by the Project for the New American Century, whose members include Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. 'At present the United States faces no global rival,' the authors write. 'America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.' "

In my opinion, Americans are the new Romans.

(Before you start pointing out the differences between the Romans and Americans, I do realize there are clearly differences between the two. Romans crucified criminals, Americans electrocute them)

[Ronin]

And then I made a typo in the thread title.

You all know I can spell better than that.

[WithStamin]

America does not conquer. Yes, we do use our military. However, we return control to the citizens as soon as possible. This is already underway in Iraq. I believe you are one of the people who wants us to intervene in Liberia? Is that not "imperialistic"?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
We argued a few weeks ago about whether or not the US could be considered imperialistic

Let me know what you think of this

"A nation this strong doesn't need to keep its ambitions secret. Join Vision 2020, freely available on the internet, outlines in considerable detail the Department of Defense plan to 'create a force that is dominant across the full spectrum of military operations - persuasive in peace, decisive in war, preeminent in any form of conflct.' Then there's the widely disseminated Rebuilding America's Defenses, published by the Project for the New American Century, whose members include Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. 'At present the United States faces no global rival,' the authors write. 'America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.' "

In my opinion, Americans are the new Romans.

(Before you start pointing out the differences between the Romans and Americans, I do realize there are clearly differences between the two. Romans crucified criminals, Americans electrocute them)


there is nothing wrong with wanting to be prepared for whatever might happen...in wwII we were ranked something like 22nd in terms of military strength and capabilities, behind countries like hungary and yugoslavia...their goal isn't to rule the world with an iron fist, its to make sure the US is never at a disadvantage if it comes down to a military conflict, thereby protecting the greatest number of american lives possible.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by WithStamin
America does not conquer. Yes, we do use our military. However, we return control to the citizens as soon as possible. This is already underway in Iraq. I believe you are one of the people who wants us to intervene in Liberia? Is that not "imperialistic"?

Nobody conquers anymore, it's become an antiquated idea.

I feel as though this is neo-imperialism. No, the US isn't conquering countres, but there are making sure that American interests are served in every corner of the globe.

And as I just said in the Liberia post, it would be a peacekeeping mission, which is fundamentally different (although you could make the argument that any American military presence in a country is a form of control, and that's a good point).

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
Nobody conquers anymore, it's become an antiquated idea.

I feel as though this is neo-imperialism. No, the US isn't conquering countres, but there are making sure that American interests are served in every corner of the globe.

And as I just said in the Liberia post, it would be a peacekeeping mission, which is fundamentally different (although you could make the argument that any American military presence in a country is a form of control, and that's a good point).

or you could argue that the the reconstruction in Iraq is essentially a peace keeping mission...

[MestNFG]

I wonder if this was ever discussed in reference to the Soviet Union, when they conqured and overtook all of Eastern Europe and parts of Central americ and tried to take Afghanistan?

I don't recall another country ever doing that since Nazi Germany. I fail to see the association of the Roman Empire and the US, when there have been two far more glaring examples for that argument in the last 60 years with germany and the USSR.

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by Ronin
I feel as though this is neo-imperialism. No, the US isn't conquering countres, but there are making sure that American interests are served in every corner of the globe.
America doesn't actively force other nations to bow to our interests. The United States is just such an economic power that it is to most nation's best interest to form bonds and/or follow suit.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by MestNFG
I wonder if this was ever discussed in reference to the Soviet Union, when they conqured and overtook all of Eastern Europe and parts of Central americ and tried to take Afghanistan?

I don't recall another country ever doing that since Nazi Germany. I fail to see the association of the Roman Empire and the US, when there have been two far more glaring examples for that argument in the last 60 years with germany and the USSR.

Like I said, I consider this to be a type of neo-Imperialism, different than the imperialism of the past, which wouldn't really work anymore

[Ronin]

Originally posted by WithStamin
America doesn't actively force other nations to bow to our interests. The United States is just such an economic power that it is to most nation's best interest to form bonds and/or follow suit.

It's more subtle than brute force. A friendly regime is installed, ostensibly by the people, but with the US heavily influencing the structure of the election.

And then the US maintains a heavy military presence in the country, but only in the form of extensive army/air force bases.

Yes, they aren't putting an American in charge, but they're making sure that American interests are served in the middle east.

[hhb119fist]

before you talk about american imperialism, read this

Empire (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000017.html)

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin


And then the US maintains a heavy military presence in the country, but only in the form of extensive army/air force bases.

.

most of the countries we have a heavy military presence in is do to the Cold War and being prepared for a possible war with the russians, not because we want more territory for ourselves...

[Ronin]

Originally posted by yeat182
most of the countries we have a heavy military presence in is do to the Cold War and being prepared for a possible war with the russians, not because we want more territory for ourselves...

So why are the bases still in use?

I don't think the US is interested in territory, you have lots of that, I think they're trying to gain more and more influence.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
So why are the bases still in use?

I don't think the US is interested in territory, you have lots of that, I think they're trying to gain more and more influence.

well, i agree that we probably don't need as many of the bases as we once did, but the reason they are in use is so that america will be prepared for whatever happens, anywhere in the world. the bases in germany are key to helping wounded soldiers, and many of the bases in europe are there to protect our nato allies, we could probably do with out some of them, but i can see why we still maintain them.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Ronin
So why are the bases still in use?


most, if not all the time, they want us there for protection (because this saves them money), and for economic factors just think of what would happen in germany (or any european nation) if we pulled out ALL our troops..............

[Ronin]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
most, if not all the time, they want us there for protection (because this saves them money), and for economic factors just think of what would happen in germany (or any european nation) if we pulled out ALL our troops..............

I think Germany could operate pretty well without US army bases.

It's hardly a struggling nation.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Ronin
I think Germany could operate pretty well without US army bases.

It's hardly a struggling nation.
I have visited a few military bases in Germany as well as Spain and Italy, I also lived on a military base in Italy for three years...those bases employee tons of natives of the country, if we pulled out of all bases out of the US, millions of non military personal who work on the military base would lose jobs, sending the countries that we left in an economic shithole...not to mention the money that Americans pump into the economy of that country. Also, if you pull out, there would be loss of work for Americans as well. If there is no longer bases outside of the US, all of those people stationed there are out of work. Military personel as well as non-military. The military gives jobs to tons of non-military workers who hold jobs on base...such as teachers, barbers and commisary workers, just to name a few. Also, so many military personel are stationed overseas...imagine if they all went home, they would have no job, and the military couldnt afford to pay all of them for doing nothing...they would be let go of. More loss of work. Just from an economic standpoint its crazy. Millions of jobs depend on American military bases.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Ronin
I think Germany could operate pretty well without US army bases.

It's hardly a struggling nation.

i didn't say they couldn't, its just in there best interest that we stay there.......................also i wouldn't really call germany a thriving nation either............

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Ronin

(Before you start pointing out the differences between the Romans and Americans, I do realize there are clearly differences between the two. Romans crucified criminals, Americans electrocute them)
Inform me on the electrocution....

[Ronin]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
i didn't say they couldn't, its just in there best interest that we stay there.......................also i wouldn't really call germany a thriving nation either............

In comparison to the US, no nation is "thriving", you have the majority of the world's money.

But Germany is a first-world nation. The average household income is high. The people living there are not poor, and they are not starved for freedom.

What nations would you say are "thriving"

[Ronin]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
Inform me on the electrocution....

Obviously I meant the electric chair, I assume you're pointing out that it's not used so commonly these days.

I was just drawing an analogy, you kill your criminals.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Ronin
Obviously I meant the electric chair, I assume you're pointing out that it's not used so commonly these days.

I was just drawing an analogy, you kill your criminals.
Um, yeah we give them lethal injections...for being criminals. The Romans tossed people to the lions for being criminals, sure, but mainly for entertainment...they had arenas built around where they would execute the death penalty...how many arenas do you see in the US for such a spectacle... and to the Romans, a crime would be something as simple as accepting Christianity...

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Ronin
In comparison to the US, no nation is "thriving", you have the majority of the world's money.

But Germany is a first-world nation. The average household income is high. The people living there are not poor, and they are not starved for freedom.

What nations would you say are "thriving"
Germany is a developed nation (no longer can you say first and third world nations, its politically incorrect, developed and undeveloped are the terms). A developed nation is a nation where the average houshold income is 20,000+, Germany falls into that...but read my earlier post on the jobs that US bases supply...

[Ronin]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
Um, yeah we give them lethal injections...for being criminals. The Romans tossed people to the lions for being criminals, sure, but mainly for entertainment...they had arenas built around where they would execute the death penalty...how many arenas do you see in the US for such a spectacle... and to the Romans, a crime would be something as simple as accepting Christianity...

I'm just pointing out a couple of similarities, we could spend all day talking about the differences, they're from different centuries.

The executions weren't solely for entertainment (see: crucifictions).

And whether you impale them or give them a lethal injection, you're still killing them. With the lethal injection, you're just saving yourself the trouble of cleaning up.

And as for the army bases, I have no doubt that they contribute greatly to the economy, similar to any large corporation. But what I'm saying is that if they pulled out of Germany, the country wouldn't collapse, and the economy would take a hit, but it wouldn't go into a tailspin.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Ronin
I'm just pointing out a couple of similarities, we could spend all day talking about the differences, they're from different centuries.

The executions weren't solely for entertainment (see: crucifictions).

And whether you impale them or give them a lethal injection, you're still killing them. With the lethal injection, you're just saving yourself the trouble of cleaning up.

And as for the army bases, I have no doubt that they contribute greatly to the economy, similar to any large corporation. But what I'm saying is that if they pulled out of Germany, the country wouldn't collapse, and the economy would take a hit, but it wouldn't go into a tailspin.
And I could make comparisons to the ACLU and the KKK, but are they in any way close to being similar? No, of course not. And lethal injection is a more humane way of killing someone than "death by bear" or even electrical chair.

And as far as economics go, you are sounding like a big business right winger that you oh-so despise. You called the bases a corporation, they give people jobs, which is true. And sure it wouldnt flatten out the economy, but think of the millions worldwide without jobs because we removed some bases...but they are just the little guy, right?

[Ronin]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
And I could make comparisons to the ACLU and the KKK, but are they in any way close to being similar? No, of course not. And lethal injection is a more humane way of killing someone than "death by bear" or even electrical chair.

And as far as economics go, you are sounding like a big business right winger that you oh-so despise. You called the bases a corporation, they give people jobs, which is true. And sure it wouldnt flatten out the economy, but think of the millions worldwide without jobs because we removed some bases...but they are just the little guy, right?

When have I ever said that I despise "big business right wingers"? I don't despise anyone.

I didn't call the bases a corporation, I said they were similar, in the way they infuse money into the economy.

And about the "humanity" of killing someone with lethal injection....

If I break into someone's house and savagely kill them with an axe, should I spend more time in jail than someone who breaks into a house and quickly and painlessly injects someone with a nerve toxin? Killing is killing.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Ronin
When have I ever said that I despise "big business right wingers"? I don't despise anyone.

I didn't call the bases a corporation, I said they were similar, in the way they infuse money into the economy.

And about the "humanity" of killing someone with lethal injection....

If I break into someone's house and savagely kill them with an axe, should I spend more time in jail than someone who breaks into a house and quickly and painlessly injects someone with a nerve toxin? Killing is killing.
However, you are still basically saying "Fuck the little guys who depend on this base, lets get it out of here"

And as for the humanity issue, putting aside your feelings on the morality of the death penalty and focusing solely on the fashion of the execution, are you saying that putting the convicted murderers head in an elevator door and push "up" and have him decapatated (courtesey of Final Destination 2) is just as humain as a lethal injection?

[Ronin]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
However, you are still basically saying "Fuck the little guys who depend on this base, lets get it out of here"

And as for the humanity issue, putting aside your feelings on the morality of the death penalty and focusing solely on the fashion of the execution, are you saying that putting the convicted murderers head in an elevator door and push "up" and have him decapatated (courtesey of Final Destination 2) is just as humain as a lethal injection?

The only difference is the amount of blood splatter.

On a side note, is Final Destination 2 good? I loved the first one.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Ronin
In comparison to the US, no nation is "thriving", you have the majority of the world's money.

But Germany is a first-world nation. The average household income is high. The people living there are not poor, and they are not starved for freedom.

What nations would you say are "thriving"

you brought up the idea of thriving and struggling nations......i just said that lossing our bases and protection will hurt them far more then it will hurt us, and will effect there economy which is already hurting........

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Ronin
The only difference is the amount of blood splatter.

On a side note, is Final Destination 2 good? I loved the first one.
Much gorrier (sp) than the first, lots of blood and severed limbs and body parts...good stuff. I just have to let you in one death, not to ruin the movie or anything, but its gross as hell. This dude gets chopped in half by chicken wire that is thrown from an explosion. And he's still alive and he looks down and his waist just falls out from underneath him...good stuff.