Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

BlapBlapBlap wrote:Finally, since when has the US been an empire?

I may be mistaken but I believe it was just after the Spanish-American War that America gained some of its first (major at least) colonies...

My guess is that when people say "America is an empire" they don't mean in the tradtional sense such as the Roman empire or the British empire where the state either conquered lands and absorbed them into their states or established colonies dedicated to the commonwealth everywhere...

But America now has the power to be practically everywhere at once...we have bases all over the world, our navies patrol not only our waters but ever sea and ocean over the globe...and we take upon "improving" other smaller third world nations as a hobby...

so in that respect there a several people who think America is an Empire of sorts...

WARORK93 wrote:

BlapBlapBlap wrote:Finally, since when has the US been an empire?

I may be mistaken but I believe it was just after the Spanish-American War that America gained some of its first (major at least) colonies...

What I mean is that an empire is a group of countries under one single ruling body. The seperate states could count I suppose.

If the USA is an Empire, and I believe it is, then what is their vision? The British had the dream of the Cape to Cairo railway, sun never sets, make the world England etc

Lots of cheap oil if you ask the hippies.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:If the USA is an Empire, and I believe it is, then what is their vision? The British had the dream of the Cape to Cairo railway, sun never sets, make the world England etc

Their vision is to secure and maintain America's position as the dominant world power, and the best possible financial circumstance for those citizens within it who possess most of the money and power. Like most Empire's to be honest.

America just uses financial colonialism in 90% of the cases as opposed to military colonialism.

America will cease to be the global dominator eventually though, historical trends seem to portray that much with relative certainty.

Never bought the cheap oil argument - plenty of oil in Alaska.

One of the good things about the rise of China is that it might provoke a reaction in the West i.e China is totalitarian, so we'll be a counterweight and let our citizens have loads of freedoms to shame China I live in hope.

Melissia wrote:

Easy E wrote: "How do you feel about that fact?"

I don't really care, myself.

Any and every country that gets influential enough will become imperialistic in some regards, because the interests of the country cannot be contained in merely the country alone in the age of globalization.

Oh god melissia, you explained it perfectly.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:If the USA is an Empire, and I believe it is, then what is their vision? The British had the dream of the Cape to Cairo railway, sun never sets, make the world England etc

To spread Democracy... right? I think we've done an alright job too. Russia, India, Japan, germany... Countries that were infamous for their despotic kings and rulers are democracies.

Although after every single country is a democracy, I can imagine the world would be a pretty boring place, so we'll probably have to change that goal.

BlapBlapBlap wrote:

WARORK93 wrote:

BlapBlapBlap wrote:Finally, since when has the US been an empire?

I may be mistaken but I believe it was just after the Spanish-American War that America gained some of its first (major at least) colonies...

What I mean is that an empire is a group of countries under one single ruling body. The seperate states could count I suppose.

That's a Federation/Confederacy, like the EU. It's just grown into more of a single nation over the years, instead of a group of allied but largely independent states.

The US isn't properly an empire; it meddles in certain issues, but that's politics, not imperialism.

And the improvised explosive devices just keep coming. The US is gone and the Iraqi people are still left with the continuing violence, corrupt undemocratic government, broken infrastructure and innumerable dead.

NC soldier, 23, was last US troop killed in Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/nc-soldier-23-last-us-troop-killed-iraq-145741944.html

GREENSBORO, N.C. (AP) — As the last U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq on Sunday, friends and family of the first and last American fighters killed in combat were cherishing their memories rather than dwelling on whether the war and their sacrifice was worth it.

Nearly 4,500 American fighters died before the last U.S. troops crossed the border into Kuwait. David Hickman, 23, of Greensboro was the last of those war casualties, killed in November by the kind of improvised bomb that was a signature weapon of this war.

"David Emanuel Hickman. Doesn't that name just bring out a smile to your face?" said Logan Trainum, one of Hickman's closest friends, at the funeral where the soldier was laid to rest after a ceremony in a Greensboro church packed with friends and family.

Trainum says he's not spending time asking why Hickman died: "There aren't enough facts available for me to have a defined opinion about things. I'm just sad, and pray that my best friend didn't lay down his life for nothing."

You have to admit that if the Iraq War was a response to 9/11, then the balance sheet looks a bit rubbish.

3000 American lives lost on 9/11

Over 5000 Allied lives lost in the Iraq War as part of the response.

Well over 100,000 innocent Iraqi lives lost either during the war or the the power vacumn that followed with suicide bombings on the like.

You surely don't have to be an anti-war hippy type person to see the insanity of it all?

I'll be honest and say I was pro Iraq War prior to the invasion because I thought the removal of Saddam Hussein was a good idea (I never believed any of the WMD nonsense - Saddam probably did have them at some point but I never felt threatened by their existence). 8 years down the road, I can see what a catastrophic doo daa the whole shebang has become and will never support a war of its like again.

With apologies to those on Dakka who fought in these conflicts. I have the utmost respect for our armed forces, but I can no longer rationalise in my mind that this or Afghanistan was/is a good idea.

Honestly, Brass Scorpion, we get it. You dislike the Iraq war. The war in Iraq is over. Using a soldier's death to make try to make cheap political point in a forum dedicated to toy soldiers is childish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Flashman wrote:You have to admit that if the Iraq War was a response to 9/11, then the balance sheet looks a bit rubbish.

3000 American lives lost on 9/11

Over 5000 Allied lives lost in the Iraq War as part of the response.

Well over 100,000 innocent Iraqi lives lost either during the war or the the power vacumn that followed with suicide bombings on the like.

You surely don't have to be an anti-war hippy type person to see the insanity of it all?

I'll be honest and say I was pro Iraq War prior to the invasion because I thought the removal of Saddam Hussein was a good idea (I never believed any of the WMD nonsense - Saddam probably did have them at some point but I never felt threatened by their existence). 8 years down the road, I can see what a catastrophic doo daa the whole shebang has become and will never support a war of its like again.

With apologies to those on Dakka who fought in these conflicts. I have the utmost respect for our armed forces, but I can no longer rationalise in my mind that this or Afghanistan was/is a good idea.

I can respect that opinion. Was the Iraq War worth it? I don't know. Time will tell. Was Americas entry into World War II (at least on the European Front) worth it? The fact that Western Europe is today an economic powerhouse and bastion of democracy instead of suffering 50 years of Communist rule seems to indicate that it was. IF (and it's a big IF) ten years from now Iraq continues to be a democracy and life is improving for the Iraqi people then I will say that yes, it was worth it.

WARORK93 wrote:Has it really been a week since our last "Bad, bad, evil America" thread?

Oh how time flies...

Whats really cool is,with this new laptop not on the corporate dime I can again back to my photoshop.

American wienie is displeased.

Frazzled wrote:Whats really cool is,with this new laptop not on the corporate dime I can again back to my photoshop.

What?

halonachos wrote:Wars never "go well", soldiers are going to die and so are some civilians. When the enemy decides to hide behind civilians, the civilian toll will rise.

Exactley. War is horrible, and can be a nesscessary evil sometimes, and civillians will die.

Yes yes, America is a terrible evil country, in it only for the oil. Can I change the channel now?

BrassScorpion wrote:And the improvised explosive devices just keep coming. The US is gone and the Iraqi people are still left with the continuing violence, corrupt undemocratic government, broken infrastructure and innumerable dead.

NC soldier, 23, was last US troop killed in Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/nc-soldier-23-last-us-troop-killed-iraq-145741944.html

GREENSBORO, N.C. (AP) — As the last U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq on Sunday, friends and family of the first and last American fighters killed in combat were cherishing their memories rather than dwelling on whether the war and their sacrifice was worth it.

Nearly 4,500 American fighters died before the last U.S. troops crossed the border into Kuwait. David Hickman, 23, of Greensboro was the last of those war casualties, killed in November by the kind of improvised bomb that was a signature weapon of this war.

"David Emanuel Hickman. Doesn't that name just bring out a smile to your face?" said Logan Trainum, one of Hickman's closest friends, at the funeral where the soldier was laid to rest after a ceremony in a Greensboro church packed with friends and family.

Trainum says he's not spending time asking why Hickman died: "There aren't enough facts available for me to have a defined opinion about things. I'm just sad, and pray that my best friend didn't lay down his life for nothing."

It's fine that you express your view, but please don't force us into agreeing with you. It makes things far worse.

The Iraq War is like the perfect Rorschach inkblot test. Stare into it and tell me why you believe it happened, and it'll say everything about you and your politics.

If you see an empire embarking on its latest conquest, well that says a lot about your politics, and very little about the actual reasons for the Iraq war.

If you see a nation responding to an international threat, well that says a lot about your politics, and very little about the actual reasons for the Iraq war.

This is because the Iraq war was an utterly stupid, absurd enterprise undertaken for reasons that are almost impossible to fathom in the light of what eventually happened. It was a bizarre, needless, ahistoric screw up by a select group of people that found themselves in control of the most powerful nation on Earth for a short period of time.

Which is pretty much how everything works. People coming to power for relatively short periods of time, sometimes doing good, sometimes doing bad, and just sometimes doing epically, horrendously bad. Seems like people like to pretend there are these great patterns to be found in one-off decisions, but I just don't think it works that way.

sebster wrote:
This is because the Iraq war was an utterly stupid, absurd enterprise undertaken for reasons that are almost impossible to fathom in the light of what eventually happened.

To be fair, this also says a great deal about your politics. Though perhaps less than those who defend the invasion as a legitimate response to security concerns, as very few people are willing to go that route. More common is the "We made Iraq a better place." argument.

What Flashman said is what I was trying to say. The whole thing was a tragedy from start to finish.

Saddam was a bad guy (obviously) but there are a lot of bad people in this world. Some get missles knocking on their door, others get diplomats and trade envoys looking for billion dollar/pound investments.

On a final note, it is possible to like ordinary Americans, but be against their government.

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:
This is because the Iraq war was an utterly stupid, absurd enterprise undertaken for reasons that are almost impossible to fathom in the light of what eventually happened.

To be fair, this also says a great deal about your politics. Though perhaps less than those who defend the invasion as a legitimate response to security concerns, as very few people are willing to go that route. More common is the "We made Iraq a better place." argument.

AMERICA: making the world a "better place" one carpet bombing at a time...

I blame the Republicans.

No, this doesn't have anything at all to do with the subject

dogma wrote:To be fair, this also says a great deal about your politics. Though perhaps less than those who defend the invasion as a legitimate response to security concerns, as very few people are willing to go that route. More common is the "We made Iraq a better place." argument.

Except that argument is, fundamentally, a nonsense. There is no great political desire in the US, in either in the population as a whole or in either major party to go about making other countries better places. No-one is getting into the Whitehouse with the intent of invading other countries and churning up American lives and treasure to make them better places for the people living there. Better places for trade with the US, sure, but that's a different matter entirely. Look at the political response to Libya, despite being entirely clean people were still scathing of any US involvement.

There were a whole bunch of reasons for Iraq. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and a whole bunch of others were writing about them for years before the invasion. It's just that none of them make any sense in the light of what followed the invasion. Democratic dominoes. Middle eastern re-awakenings. US political dominance developed through liberalisation. They all just seem ridiculous now, and to people who actually knew what they were talking about they were ridiculous at the time (I myself did not know how silly and impractical they were, and ended up in the 'wrong reason for a right war' camp).

But to people like the writer of the OP's article, there can't be any mistakes, ahistoric fuckups that buck the political sensibilities. Instead there's evidence of empire.

sebster wrote:The Iraq War is like the perfect Rorschach inkblot test. Stare into it and tell me why you believe it happened, and it'll say everything about you and your politics.

In that case, its interesting why you hold the opinion on it you do....

Every time I see the title of this thread I see this: this ain't a scene, it's an arms race.

Moore's bitchings about new theocracy/women's rights in Iraq isn't the US' fault, it's the Iraqi peoples for choosing Islamist groups to democratically lead them.

In which case I wonder if he supported the "Arab Spring" against Mubarak. He actually is documented as doing so, despite the fact it has led to Islamists gaining power in Egypt. Basically he advocated the exact opposite as here.

sebster wrote:

dogma wrote:To be fair, this also says a great deal about your politics. Though perhaps less than those who defend the invasion as a legitimate response to security concerns, as very few people are willing to go that route. More common is the "We made Iraq a better place." argument.

Except that argument is, fundamentally, a nonsense. There is no great political desire in the US, in either in the population as a whole or in either major party to go about making other countries better places. No-one is getting into the Whitehouse with the intent of invading other countries and churning up American lives and treasure to make them better places for the people living there. Better places for trade with the US, sure, but that's a different matter entirely. Look at the political response to Libya, despite being entirely clean people were still scathing of any US involvement.

There were a whole bunch of reasons for Iraq. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and a whole bunch of others were writing about them for years before the invasion. It's just that none of them make any sense in the light of what followed the invasion. Democratic dominoes. Middle eastern re-awakenings. US political dominance developed through liberalisation. They all just seem ridiculous now, and to people who actually knew what they were talking about they were ridiculous at the time (I myself did not know how silly and impractical they were, and ended up in the 'wrong reason for a right war' camp).

But to people like the writer of the OP's article, there can't be any mistakes, ahistoric fuckups that buck the political sensibilities. Instead there's evidence of empire.

I disagree that there is not a great political desire in the US to go and make other countries better places. Liberals groups want to go into places like Darfur or humiliate the government of Turkey with the Armenian genocide. Conservatives want to go to war with Iran to stop them from developing nukes. We (Americans) have not learned anything because as a collective group Americans choose to remain willfully ignorant. This year alone we have been involved in 4 wars and have used military force to kill people in 5 nations.

.... But, they had it coming?

Love this thread. Though I can see the Americans dont and some consercative Brits spit on it as well.

All I can say about the whole Iraq *war* is this.

*Sniff Sniff* There's oil in them there HILLS!

ParatrooperSimon wrote:Love this thread.

What a strange thing to love.

ParatrooperSimon wrote:Though I can see the Americans dont

Then you see about as well as an old man with glaucoma and cataracts.

Ketara wrote:In that case, its interesting why you hold the opinion on it you do....

Maybe, except my is 'it has no greater meaning beyond being something that made sense to the people who ended up in charge at that particular time and doesn't really reflect greater US trends' is a bit like saying 'it's just an ink smudge on the page'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

schadenfreude wrote:I disagree that there is not a great political desire in the US to go and make other countries better places. Liberals groups want to go into places like Darfur or humiliate the government of Turkey with the Armenian genocide. Conservatives want to go to war with Iran to stop them from developing nukes. We (Americans) have not learned anything because as a collective group Americans choose to remain willfully ignorant. This year alone we have been involved in 4 wars and have used military force to kill people in 5 nations.

Except of course, some guy on the street wanting the US government to ban shaving poodles doesn't really make it a

The fringe of the left wing does talk a lot about Darfur, but entirely in a rhetorical sense (if you're going to invade somewhere, why not Darfur?) The right wing talks about Iran in almost entirely fantastical terms (just nuke it!). None of these people actually have arguments put forward to congressmen, there are no lobby groups in Washington that are pushing invasion. Do you honestly believe any of them would genuinely support a sustained peacekeeping operation, and the US casualties that would be suffered?

The 00's were a strange time. You had a strange administration, in the wake of a generation defining terror attack. The invasion of a country that was pretty just sitting there being poor, isolated and disfunctional was the rather odd result of all that.