quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I know you guys are past this already, but I just read it. I think there's a difference because the U.S. is not involved in "colonialism" like the europeans of the past. The U.S. is uniquely different in that we are the only country in the history of the world NOT to claim any land from the country defeated in battle. Not Korea, Germany, Japan, or wherever else. Anyway, all this talk of Vietnam and Pol Pot, different regimes and political ideals that lead to all that maddness makes me think of this clip by Carl Sagan... starting at 1:22 into it, things really get put into perspective.

but modern imperialism is different than imperialism before the Second World War. And do you not factor in the conquest of the Native Americans as an imperial venture? It fits the definition to a tee. And what of the gains during the Spanish American War? Mckinley was a blatant imperial expanionist at the turn of the 20th Century.

Anyway, American imperialism is based on economic influence, rather than direct control. the United States didn't need to take control of defeated nations (although they pretty much ran Japan for the first two decades after WW2) and take their resources when they could just export their own products and services to the rest of the world and make a fortune, which is precisely what the US has done over the last 60 years.

___________________
"No offense, but you're stupid"

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 but modern imperialism is different than imperialism before the Second World War. And do you not factor in the conquest of the Native Americans as an imperial venture? It fits the definition to a tee. And what of the gains during the Spanish American War? Mckinley was a blatant imperial expanionist at the turn of the 20th Century. Anyway, American imperialism is based on economic influence, rather than direct control. the United States didn't need to take control of defeated nations (although they pretty much ran Japan for the first two decades after WW2) and take their resources when they could just export their own products and services to the rest of the world and make a fortune, which is precisely what the US has done over the last 60 years.

oh bollocks.

imperialism

1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imperialism

it describes government, or the manner in which a goverment is behaving. its not some catch-all cry you can wave about at anyone exerting influence over another. the mainstay of US power comes from its economic power, which is in the hands of the private sector (which isnt sitting in on executive foreign policy decisions).

what you are talkking about primarily is a billion billion billion individual choices and decisions, made by governments, corporations, private citizens across the globe.

one of the main reasons the US dominates the globe economically is that they were the only industrialised nation that didn't suffer horrific war damage. everyone needed the US for everything. of course power will drawn to a nation like that at that time.

the idea that the US is dominating the world's resources and/or markets because they are 'taking' it in some imperialist action is simply not true.

i would be interested to hear your arguments providing specific examples of US imperialism and the economic and strategic benefits this imperialism has generated, since world wae 2.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 but modern imperialism is different than imperialism before the Second World War. And do you not factor in the conquest of the Native Americans as an imperial venture? It fits the definition to a tee. And what of the gains during the Spanish American War? Mckinley was a blatant imperial expanionist at the turn of the 20th Century. Anyway, American imperialism is based on economic influence, rather than direct control. the United States didn't need to take control of defeated nations (although they pretty much ran Japan for the first two decades after WW2) and take their resources when they could just export their own products and services to the rest of the world and make a fortune, which is precisely what the US has done over the last 60 years.

I would equate it more to multinational corporatism.

___________________

I guess you haven't read much on the American Empire?

and are you really trying to tell me that government doesn't act in accordance to the private sector's wishes? dude...governments are practically slaves to corporations these days.


What do you make of American interference in Cuba and in Central and South America? What of their actions in the Middle East? If that isn't imperialism, the I don't know what is.

You've listed the defintion of the word in its strict historical sense but it has taken on a new meaning in today's world. The phrase "US economic imperialism" is bandied about quite often so I really dont' know where you're coming from here.

oh and this isn't directed at you, Krypton but to the guy above you.

___________________
"No offense, but you're stupid"

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I would equate it more to multinational corporatism.

yes definitely, but what do you make of the ties between the private sector and government and the influence that's exerted over the other? I'd say that the private sector has a pretty big influence over American politics. Just look at who funds the Republican Party....

___________________
"No offense, but you're stupid"

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i would be interested to hear your arguments providing specific examples of US imperialism and the economic and strategic benefits this imperialism has generated, since world wae 2.

in case you missed it the first time.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 Just look at who funds the Republican Party....

Dude, the Dems get more of their funding in corporate donations now than the Republicans. This isn't 1984.

You keep blasting out these comments that have no validity, like "unemployment is at its highest level in US history, Iraq is completely unwinable, nobody can afford their mortgages anymore (because of Bush), backdoor drafts are the only way to keep people in the military..." ALL of which can easily be refuted. LOL.. and you question other people on here where they get THEIR news from? I know they get Al Jazeera in Canada but you can check out other sources too Donation link below. I already debunked your other falsehoods earlier but if you want links for those too, I'll provide.

http://liberalpro.blogspot.com/2007...w-favoring.html

Last edited by The17sss on Jul-28-2008 at 15:49

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss The U.S. is uniquely different in that we are the only country in the history of the world NOT to claim any land from the country defeated in battle. Not Korea, Germany, Japan, or wherever else.

the spanish american war the US claimed the phillipines, cuba, and puerto rico. In the mexican-american war the US took from mexico practically the entire western US including arguably our most important state - california. the US is not much different than western europe in that territorial colonialism effectively stopped at the beginning of the 20th century.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 yes definitely, but what do you make of the ties between the private sector and government and the influence that's exerted over the other? I'd say that the private sector has a pretty big influence over American politics. Just look at who funds the Republican Party....

I call it multinational corporatism. Multinational corporations have no loyalty to country because they have no country. They are essentially a state of their own. They certainly have much more influence than the average well informed citizen. Too much influence if you ask me. Especially within the Republican Party, because they are essentially the party of deregulation and pork barrel spending.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I call it multinational corporatism. Multinational corporations have no loyalty to country because they have no country.

bs - multinational corporations are incorporated in one country, normally have their headquarters in that country, and the executives are overwhelmingly from the country of incorporation. to that end, they are stakeholders in the community in which their headquarters operate and support that community. If corporations have split loyalties it is becasue the corporation is a stakeholder in multiple jurisdictions.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 bs - multinational corporations are incorporated in one country, normally have their headquarters in that country, and the executives are overwhelmingly from the country of incorporation. to that end, they are stakeholders in the community in which their headquarters operate and support that community. If corporations have split loyalties it is becasue the corporation is a stakeholder in multiple jurisdictions.

I disagree. A corporation's sole purpose is to generate a profit. It doesn't matter where they are incorporated. Stakeholder's in the community? BULLSHIT. Tell that to all the workers who've lost their jobs to foreign outsourcing! Ohhhh, I don't think you thought about that huh? What about the numerous multinational corporations whose earnings come from mostly FOREIGN MARKETS! Coca-cola? Yea? They have no loyalty to the nation. If they don't like the government policy, they can pack up and move to China at any time! They don't care! Corporations are amoral. Profit is their sole purpose for existence. Not love of country.

___________________