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

... yeah, any old excuse... it's probably coz your socks smell

Egon... see ya Monday!!

FF

no, I'm not feeling left out. I just keep hoping for a really good fight to start but each post is just one more brit raising his kilt and farting at another. I gotta go.

::slaps everyone...simply because::

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!! What....have you guys got a gene that predisposes you to arguement!!!!!!! GGGEEESSSHHH....You guys aren't satisfied 'til you see blood!!!LOL

Yes, anhaga, its' done!!!!....well, maybe. As long as they don't turn this into a nighthooverish thread...it will be gone soon!

NM

Hey, I just thought of a couple of things about US imperialism and the meaning of the word Empire:

What's the tallest building in New York?

What do the people of the "Inland North-West" also call their area?

...and of course it's not entirely fair. The American 'empire' was not obtained in the traditional manner, by invasion, but by becoming the biggest boy in the schoolyard. America is the current ruler of the known world, or a good approximation to it, and it's *this*, I think, that prompts people to refer to empires.

America has not conquered the world by force - or at least it hasn't at the time of writing - but it acts in the world as previous empires did. It 'relocates' the assets of other countries, meddles in their affairs, starts and stops wars within their borders, and amends or replaces their governments if they step too far out of line.

We all did it at some point in the past; maybe it's just America's turn....

Oh, er, examples? Well, the USA put Saddam Hussein into power didn't they? They were involved (with Britain) in the creation of the state of Israel on land that a lot of arabs thought was theirs.... They killed more Afghani *civilians* than died in the Twin Towers, but have yet to answer for it. They are currently trying to persuade North Korea that although they (the USA) have shedloads of nuclear weapons, it isn't OK for them (North Korea) to have them too.

Aren't these the sort of actions one might expect from an imperial power? I think they are. Bit if you insist on a strict dictionary definition of 'empire', then you are right that the label doesn't fit. Not quite.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I'm just going to take a moment to suggest that while there may be debate about the meaning of the term Imperialism, and about whether the U. S. is now or has recently followed a path which would satisfy Fairly Strange's definition, the United States after its civil war did pursue actively a course of Imperialism in the sense of government sponsored military conquest of weaker neighbouring nations in order to expand its territory. The expansion into "Indian Territory" was exactly parallel to Germany's and Japan's expansion that led to the Second World War. So, the U. S. has a history of whatever kind of Imperialism one could imagine. Whether they still do it I don't feel like saying right now.

Yep....."my definition" of imperialism was once rampant on this globe. We are as quilty as any other nation.....

Things changed a bit at or around the beginning of the 20th century here. It became a not too popular thing to do, and as I recall, the US put a stop to European colonization of the American continent around that time.(Monroe Doctrine? memory is slow tonight, and I really don't feel like looking it up!)

While the US did lend itself to imperialism during WWII, it was directly associated with strategic positioning, not remote rule. As I understand, at present most of those areas have been returned to autonomy or their previous rulers.

As far as the "Indian Wars" in the US are concerened.....yep.....thats' imperialism at its' worst. The climate in the world at the time made it legal. It was not right, but future historians are the only ones who will be able to say if it was a good thing. To be honest, I think it was.(my sympathy to those native americans and their families who died during it)

As far as present day? I don't see the general population of the US supporting an imperialist attitude(by my initial definition). We don't see the need, nor do I think any of us have the stomach for such wanton aggression.

ATM we are split about Iraq....but not as severely as the protesters and media would have you think. It is not a matter of WMD nor UN sanctions being ignored that has most of us irritated(sp)....we're just d**n tired of Iraq being a thorn in our side.

Excuse my "American Arrogance" for a moment, but sometimes it just feels good to swat a mesquito with a sledgehammer........especially if that mesquito doesn't think you will. Thats' the majority attitude I've seen around me.

So, no...we're not looking to rule Iraq...we just want them to shut up and go away quietly.

Sadly, Saddam is not interested in that option.

NM

"I don't see the general population of the US supporting an imperialist attitude"

I think it's whether the Bush administration support it, rather than the general public, which concerns a lot of people.

Believe it or not, our right to keep and bear arms in the US has NOTHING to do with individual security. Read our constitution closely.

Note, I did not say our GOVERNMENT might not like to try their hand at imperialism, but the general populace will not support it. Those who wish to put us in harms way by their ambition will find their way out of office.

If elections fail, there is always the alternative. Not one we relish, but one that none of us are afraid of.

NM

LOL...I think that should be "bare"!!!!!! If a bear gets a gun and knows how to use it, I'm runnin'....FAST

NM

you can imagine Charlton Heston and the NRA "Any grizzly bear has a right to defend it's home..."

"bare" means naked.
"bear" means carry as well as the furry, short-tailed animal that lives in a big blue house.
At least, that's what my Webster's Collegiate says.

BTW: we didn't here a lot from Saddam or Iraq for about ten years while the British and Americans were bombing them once a week. Who was the thorn? Who wants who to shut up and go away?

LOL!!!!! I don't want Charlton Heston having a gun!!!!! THAT would be scary!

By the way...last time I checked, bears aren't considered US citizens....in spite of what PETA might wish!

NM

"I don't want Charlton Heston having a gun!!!!! "

Bit late for that, the guy's president of the NRA

Very good, anhaga.(so my initial "bear" was correct? it just don't look right!)

I see your point....but that is not how "the man on the street" views it in my little corner of the world.

Right or wrong, it is considered that Saddam should have done what he agreed to at the end of the '91 war. If he had, we wouldn't have troops there now and "all would be right with the world".

Most are just darn tired of the Middle East in general. They have been at war there for over 2000 years, and they (as well as myself) don't see it ending any time soon......its' all a waste of time, but the world needs what they can give.

Speaking of bears, maybe thats' an analogy.?

A bear attacks a honeybee nest, knowing he'll get stung.....but he needs the honey.

The bees will never be happy about it, but that is just how nature works.
THAT is imperialism. Trouble is, we don't need what they have there as much as the rest of the world does....so why are we even messing with it?


NM

Egon,...at least he has "handlers"......hopefully they keep the firepower away from him...if not. No problem.

Just don't jump the fence at his Hollywood mansion!LOL

NM

"Could anyone here explain the charge against the US government in context with past imperialism?"

It's not imperialism in the classic sense. Imperialism proper means occupying a country, annexing it, installing a "governor" (someone who answers to the central government of the "home" nation) and then taxing the natives, taking their resources and conscripting the natives into the armed forces, thus increasing the wealth of the home nation and the size of it's army/navy etc. Another aspect of Imperialism is attempting to "convert" the natives over to the culture of the home nation. The Romans were very big on this, other empires less so. The British, in particular, attempted it but tended to rely on simply making money from their empire rather than "civilising" it.

US power works differently, outside of it's borders and it's (very few) colonies, the US tends to look at who runs the country and then decides to "back" the most pro-US leader (ie the leader who will do business at home and abroad the US feels is in it's interests) - usually with money and promises of favourable trade. Thus, the country in question benefits financially (well, the people in power do) and the leader in question has a friendly foreign power he can rely on. Most of the other "Great Powers" use the same technique, but the US - being a Superpower - has more resources to expend on this "building bridges" diplomacy.

It's "imperialism" of a sort, but not the "real thing".

"Most are just darn tired of the Middle East in general."

Right or wrong, that's the way an awful lot of the world feels about America (and Europe): darn tired (and a little scared).

He-he...yeah....I think of it as "carrot and stick" deplomacy.

Dangle the carrot on a stick, if they don't like the carrot...hit 'em with the stick!

You're right, though. Its' all done with money now. We gain empire with money and favors...or lack thereof. I suppose its' more civilized than the past, but for some reason....a lot of folks in the world don't see it as such.

We have the ability to produce the same results by more unfavorable means, but for some reason we can't make ourselves be as nasty as the world would like us to be.

That may be a bit of the reason some folks are so upset....if we'd just go crazy and take over a few countrys by force their opinions would be justified. Instead we plop a McDonalds in their midst and dare them not to patronize it.

Such barbarianism....one can hardly stomach it...much less the Big Mac that comes with it!

NM