h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Much of the article rings a few little bells.
But it leaves out three things:

1. Tribute. The Soviets exacted much more from the territories they took over or conquered than even the Nazis. The U.S. has never been big on tribute. There is always the illusion of free trade rather than entitlement.

2. Allies. Rome's allies were mostly mercenaries who weren't terribly particular who they fought or for. The U.S. has actually extended itself (albeit for reasons that occasionally seem thin in hindsight) for its allies and often demanded very little in return. While Rome often turned its enemies into allies, it kept hostages and installed its puppet governors wherever it could.

3. Philosophy. The U.N. unfortunately cannot forget its older cousin, the League of Nations. The U.S. weighed the League of Nations and found it wanting. The U.N. often seems to be a group of sycophants who are happy to talk to each other, but ultimately are there to see that their own countries are not misrepresented. The similarities in the acronyms U.N. and U.S. have been played with by scholars for decades. Without a country that is willing and able (though with very much less than the 'lightning' speed attributed to it in the article) to send its young men into every corner of the globe as an example, the rest of the world would probably still be sticking to its own knitting. There is a kind of Cargo Cult still operating in the world, believing that if the U.S. is stupid enough to want to do something, then they are smart enough to take advantage of it.
It is the U.S.'s apparently limitless naivete that lends it a curiosity and a blindness that Rome at it's most playful could never approach.

The panic, the vomit, the panic, the vomit. God loves his children...

Will the miserable ginger dwarf please stand up?

Er, in other words, Radiohead were rambling on about this a while back.

Anyway, the counterarguments seem to be exercises in pedantry to me. The American Empire exists, broadly speaking, whether or not they wear bloody togas or collect tribute (the IMF, perhaps?)

"I have seen the idea discussed before. Jerry Pournelle, who is my favorite author, keeps talking about the decsion that we have to make, are we going to conitue being a republic or are we going to move on to being an empire."

America has one major weakness if it wanted to build a proper empire, the fact that it's government cannot rely on a constant supply of troops from the home nation as the Vietnam war showed. Rome would have won it's own Vietnam, the Empire would simply have kept sending more and more troops until the enemy was exhausted. Rome would also have guaranteed the foreign elite they would keep their (nominal) titles and wealth after annexation and the installation of a governor, which would prevent the powerful forces in that nation rebelling against Roman rule.

Even assuming the United States suddenly got a centralised government and an all-powerful leader, I think it would have difficultly annexing and holding more than Central and perhaps some of South America before exhausting itself financially. No, they'll have to stick to trade treaties and the occasional military base. Empires are dead.

...So was the United Nations just a pipe dream that one day,it would become the world government!!!

I also hate these films where America saves the world and Europe gets splatted by asteriods!!!

I agree with many points on both sides of the argument here. In my opinion Zagreb was quite right to point out that it is no longer possible to run an 'Empire' in the traditional way, and that the ruling classes of countries are basically the ones reaping the benefits of neo-liberalist capitalism.

But there are too many simlarities between an Empire and the current state of affairs to ignore completely.

My hunch is that the US is an Empire, but it is just an Empire that has realised you need a different approach of running the Empire than what was previously used. This makes it stronger than the previous Empires who would rule countries without a pretence about it, i.e. the British in India. America seems to have the control over other countries so they can extract what they need, but it seems to happen in a more negotiable manner.

We are all told that we are free, and it is this that convinces us that the American 'Empire' is no bad thing. It negotiates it's position with us by convincing us that it is just and fair, but I read this the other day and it really seemed to hit the nail on the head.

Aung San Suu Kyi fought to overturn the brutal military dictatorship in her native Burma (now renamed Myanmar). Her party won the election of 1990, but as she had been placed under house arrest since 1989 she was not allowed to take power. Suu Kyi says, "Free men are the oppressed who go on trying"

All this is purely my own thoughts on the matter though, so please excuse the ramblings and innacuracies.

You could have just said the US was a coperate Empire!!!

Wouldn't have been as much fun though would it!

Besides - I have my reputation as most incoherent poster to keep up

O! Rly?

"My hunch is that the US is an Empire, but it is just an Empire that has realised you need a different approach of running the Empire than what was previously used. This makes it stronger than the previous Empires who would rule countries without a pretence about it, i.e. the British in India. America seems to have the control over other countries so they can extract what they need, but it seems to happen in a more negotiable manner."

It's not an Empire. As for the comment that influence and treaties make it "stronger" than real Empires, that's just silly. Look at my point about Saudi Arabia.

What I really want to know is why anti-Americans are so desperate to believe in an American Empire.

I'm sure the Romans had a name for the "friendly" states they influenced and traded with when they couldn't annex them. This would be better and much more realistic than all this silly talk about "empire" and "imperialism".

Doesn't really matter to me that it's called an Empire or whatever. They have massive control over foreign governments' policy. Our own Anti-Terrorism Bill from 2000 was co-drafted by the FBI. Now we have 'No representation without taxation'

The point I was making about it being stronger, is the illusion that each state is autonomous keeps the anger at a far lower state. If every Saudi knew as fact that it is governed by the CIA, rather than CIA sponsored Princes that are able to say one thing (then do another btw), they would overthrow their government in a second.

I guess the whole thing hinges on how you define the word 'empire'.

However I am not going to offer any suggestions.

B

I am impressed by the idea of America, a constitutional federal republic with liberty and free enterprise. The actuallity of America does not impress me. It's sort of a powerful yet impotent semi-socialist state without resolve, intelligence or glory.

Many people here seem to have an opposite view. They don't like the idea of America, but are impressed by the nation. They think free entriprise is evil and democracy is good. They think America can spread its industrial might by overthrowing foriegn governments at will.

One other point about Rome. Thier military technology was not all that hot. They used the same tactics and weapons for a thousand years. They worked them well, but thier infantry tactics and weapons were old before Christ. I giuess that's not dissimilar to us. In WWII the US wasn't successful because the Sherman tanks was a good tank, it wasn't. The Germans just couldn't make enough rounds to shoot them all.

I agree with the bit about semi-socialist.
I was going to say so myself, but I engaged in a bit of descretion for once, knowing I couldn't stop with just the word.

And of course, someone earlier in the thread popped up with the classic Monty Python's "Life of Brian" line.

Since Saudi Arabia is ruled by a dynasty, the Saud family, I think their semi-deified status might make it hard for the lower castes to topple them without a major change of philosophy.

Attributing the ability to rule from afar to the CIA is to give them a mythical promotion that would be far more credible if we'd never heard of them.

Now, if you want to talk about the oil companies, I'm ready to listen.
I'll believe almost anything about them.

I must say that the world does seem to be a curious mix of those who think the CIA run the world and those who think the CIA couldn't run a bath.

I guess the truth, like all these things, is a mix of the two extremes.

I don't think there really is a lower caste there. They have to import the lower caste from abroad.

off to use my agent training and flush a toilet!

Well, that's the impression I had when I was there.

I defer to your experience.

"One other point about Rome. Thier military technology was not all that hot. They used the same tactics and weapons for a thousand years. They worked them well, but thier infantry tactics and weapons were old before Christ. I giuess that's not dissimilar to us. In WWII the US wasn't successful because the Sherman tanks was a good tank, it wasn't. The Germans just couldn't make enough rounds to shoot them all."

The Romans kept using the same tactics for 1000 years because, I think, their enemies didn't change much. After the establishment of the Empire and the total domination of Europe and the Medditerranean, Rome's only real credible enemy was Persia. The barbarians only strength was numbers and their didn't seem to change much.

I recently read a book called "Count Belisarius" set in the Late Antique/Early "Byzantine" Roman Empire of the 500s. In that, the Roman army is described as using lances and being more cavalry-based. I think at some point the barbarians changed tactics and became more sophisticated. I think the Romans didn't see the point in changing until them.

As an incidental point, one of the Empire's most devestating weapons, "Greek Fire" which successfully obliterated an Arab war fleet, was invented in the middle ages when the Empire had been in decline for centuries.

"and their didn't seem to change much."

"and their tactics didn't seem to change much." that should read