posted
We are at a point in our history where the poor who stay here in the US can't really survive except by the public's largesse (through charity or government give-aways).
There are plenty of poorly run countries on the planet. We have people living in horrid squalor elsewhere who could certainly benefit from an infusion of American know-how and capital.
Frankly, we are exporting jobs and harming our own working poor in the process.
So, the question before us is: Should the US embark on a program of expansion?
In another sense, we have this view that we know best how to run a country, right? So, wouldn't EVERYONE benefit from our know-how and excellence in national management?
Maybe rather than colonize, we should simply offer our services in government administration? We send our excess administrative staff overseas and the US government gets a 10% overhead to run the program?
<insert -- where's the tongue-in-cheek graemlin when you need it?>
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The US should stop trying to convince itself and others that it is a passive democracy. The reason all these military campaigns fail is that the US occupies only reluctantly and apologetically. Proclaim the American Empire, and start annexing upstart nations outright. That way there's no ambiguity, and you'll be much more effective.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah, send the 38% who think that Dubya is doin' a fine ol' job to Iraq. That way they can do the job -- by outnumbering the Iraqis if nothing else -- insteada just "rah-rah-rah sis-boom-bah"ing the underpaid&overworked UStroops over there.
What with all their hollering about wanting to establish one in America, I'm sure they'll appreciate living under the religious theocracy that'll end up being established should they fail.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I know... Giving Dubya supporters what they claim they want would be cruel beyond any liberal's or moderate's capacity. Nonetheless, just thinking about the absurd is kinda fun.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Democrats are too right-wing for me to be be a registered party member. I register Republican (and contribute) to influence their primaries leftward. Then if my Republican choice hasn't won the nomination and there is a tight race, I (contribute to and) vote for the Democrat. If the race isn't tight, I throw my (support and) vote to the Green or similar candidate.
posted
There's a certain irony in the fact that a nation that was formed partially because it didn't want to be part of somebody else's glorious empire has been an empire, in at least one definition, for a large part of its history...
posted
Actually, I find it somehow sad, like a missed opportunity, that a nation that is in a better position to form a wide-reaching empire than any other in history has been so self-conscious and squeamish about asserting itself when it gets right down to it. America is not an empire, it's a missed empire.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, digging_holes, but then politics is always very twisty. Problems arise when people lock on to a party as "my side", then vote for "my side" without regard to the qualities of their party's nominee, or how their vote might affect the balance of power.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must agree with you on at least that point, aspectre.
In fact, I've considered joining the Liberal Party in an attempt to influence them towards the right, but at present my problem is not solely with the Liberal Party's policies, it's with the Party itself. It has grown so corrupt and arrogant from 12 years in power that I couldn't see myself voting for them, even if the candidates were remarkable, until they had had a suitable time out of power to cool their heads.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, it's much better to be a declared Empire, because then you don't have to worry about what others think, and you don't have to go through the pesky formality of elections and such.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A continuous (though scheduled) revolution by ballot is a lot less pesky than having random revolutions by bullet.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whenever people talk about America in my classes they use the word Empire to describe it.
I've only recently noticed it, too. I think something switched in people's minds and they thought, "what the heck, let's just call it an Empire because it's clearly the most powerful country in the world."
Two Canadian Diplomats who I heard speak on Thursday night used the word Empire to speak about America.
It's a strange feeling. It never occured to me before that in many ways America rules the world, but it does. Being right next door is like being Gaul on the edge of the Roman Empire, only without the actually political ruling aspects. Every other country spends a minute fraction of what America does on the military per capita. Something like 80% of Canada's exports go into America!
quote: Being right next door is like being Gaul on the edge of the Roman Empire, only without the actually political ruling aspects.
In other words, it's almost like an Empire, except that it isn't at all.
quote: Every other country spends a minute fraction of what America does on the military per capita.
This is simply false. Canada spends a minute fraction of what America does on its military. Canada is not every other country. In fact, Canada spends the smallest percentage of it's gross national product on military than any developed country in the world. And while the US has certainly been the most insistant about us increasing defense spending (simply because they're the ones who are most affected by it), they have not been the only ones to give diplomatic slaps on the wrist to Canada for it's military negligence.
quote: Something like 80% of Canada's exports go into America!
Closer to 85%, unless I am very much mistaken.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Less interesting for the history books, digging_holes, but economicly unsound, eg: The AmericanRevolution cost about a quarter of (what would now be called) the GrossDomesticProduct, stopped what had been a fabulous rate of economic growth, and left the States with a crushing debt load which caused a major depression (which in turn forced the ContinentalConfederation to become the UnitedStates). Similarly, the Union could have bought&freed the slaves then have given the newly emancipated citizens their "forty acres and a mule" for a lesser fraction of what it cost the North to fight the CivilWar. Admittedly at this time in the North, conditions were ripe for rapid industrialization, for which the War provided incentive. And due to the new industrial capacity, Northerners ended up so flush in capital that they could invest to such a free extent that the ReconstructionEra brought the greatest period of growth that the South had ever experienced. The South's growth rate tanked after the FederalOccupation ended, and remained slow until the CivilRightsAct was passed -- and more importantly, enforced -- in the 1960s.
Which leads to the correlation that when citizens can vote -- eg the ReconstructionEra and after the CivilRightsAct -- the economy prospers. And when they can't -- eg preCivilWar and JimCrow South -- the economy severely underperforms.
This is the graph I was referring to, not the per capita graph which only has the U.S. at number three.
Now, I know it says to treat the numbers with caution but I think that the little green bars do mean something and do speak for themselves. Also, I think the data of military spending for the U.S. comes from 1999, so I imagine there have been a few changes since.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's a strange feeling. It never occured to me before that in many ways America rules the world, but it does. Being right next door is like being Gaul on the edge of the Roman Empire, only without the actually political ruling aspects. Every other country spends a minute fraction of what America does on the military per capita. Something like 80% of Canada's exports go into America!
I wouldn't say that at all. People say no to America all the time when we ask for something, and we don't execute them, we don't invade them (Iraq being the exception to a 230 year old rule). Perhaps you can call them a 21st century FORM of Empire, but they certainly aren't an empire in the sense of the ancient world's empires, or even the more recent Napoleonic Empire.
Second, I'm surprised to hear anything but support coming out of Canada for the US military preparedness. If someone invaded Canada, who do they think would be doing the defending? Our Coast Guard and Air National Guard and Reserve Units have more military power than their entire military armed forces. They could never defend themselves from a serious threat, and we would be there to help them, which is I think something they count on. Seems a little dishonest to call someone an Empire, especially if its meant disparingly, and then pin any hope at all on that Empire helping you in any situation at all.
Further, are you complaining that 80% of Canada's exports go to America? If it helps to fuel your economy, you should be thankful.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm not complaining. I'm saying that it shows how much of an economic dependence Canada has on America. That's not a bad thing or a good thing, it just makes Canada very vulnerable to certain aspects of American policy.
And I'm not comparing America to the Roman Empire in terms of rampaging or contol, only in terms of next-door-neighbour power.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is 100% true that Western Europe, the U.S., Canada, and Australia are more enlightened than almost any other country in the world.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: And I'm not comparing America to the Roman Empire in terms of rampaging or contol, only in terms of next-door-neighbour power.
That's a fairly loose comparison then. During the height of the Empire, Rome's only real neighbors were the Germans to the north, and the Persians to the east, neither of which ever listened to or were influenced by Roman policy, except to fight wars that Rome ended up losing.
I don't think you can compare America to any past empire or kingdom. Too much has changed, outside of direct military power, about what we think of as power and influence in international relations for them to fit together.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of the Romans' success lied in the fact that they incorporated themselves into other cultures and vice versa rather than taking over more directly. Yes, there were still revolts, but indigenous cultures like the Britons, etc. weren't crushed and obliterated as much as they were subtly taken over and changed to work with the Roman government. Local governmental systems still existed, but they were incorporated into the larger Roman system.
I admit I know very little about American or Canadian politics, but from my general public person's viewpoint, an Empire is similar in many ways to how I view America. Its pop culture is prominent globally to a degree few if any other cultures are, and other countries are dependent on working with the American government to survive economically (ie. the 80% of Canadian exports example), even if they're technically independent. The difference is that I don't think America is trying to take over the world as actively as the Romans were, but I wonder sometimes.
quote: Second, I'm surprised to hear anything but support coming out of Canada for the US military preparedness. If someone invaded Canada, who do they think would be doing the defending?
quote:Seems a little dishonest to call someone an Empire, especially if its meant disparingly, and then pin any hope at all on that Empire helping you in any situation at all.
But...that's what an Empire does. It expands and takes over other places and defends them. And who would invade us? I'm not joking, here. I don't know. Are there threats posed to Canada? If anyone does invade, I assume it will be to claim part of the Northwest Passage, and will America be there to defend our right to that? Is that an American priority? (These are serious questions; I don't know how the whole we'll help the neighbours out deal works when it comes to it).
Posts: 624 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, forget I said the Roman Empire thing. It wasn't supposed to be a fullproof comparison just great power vs. smaller power.
quote:Second, I'm surprised to hear anything but support coming out of Canada for the US military preparedness. If someone invaded Canada, who do they think would be doing the defending?
I don't feel in danger of invasion. Terrorism, maybe. Economic damage, maybe. Invasion... not really.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arguably Canada faces no serious threats of invasion right now because of its neighbor. For the time being, there really aren't any First World Western nations facing a threat of invasion from anyone, Astaril.
Do you think that will last?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that Canada would be invaded even if it was alone in North America.
I'm not saying that in the case of an invasion, if the world was like that, I wouldn't be pleased to have a lot of firepower in my nextdoor neighbour's back yard, but since I don't feel like anyone really wants to invade Canada right now the phenomenal amount of power that the U.S. has makes it the largest most powerful nation in the world. And that, you have to admit, could be somewhat unnerving.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Canadians voted to close down their government and become Chinese, do you think that the US would just shrug it off?
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um... I have never heard of anyone eating beaver. I'm sure it would be stringy. Besides, it would be kind of sacreligious, you know?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, it seems kind of weird that no one eats beaver. Not that I'm advocating eating beavers, but still, people eat gators and snakes, but not beavers?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Well, they are the national animal and all. They may also be partially endangered.
Perhaps beavers don't taste very good? They always remind me of large rats with flat tails.
quote:Because they breed only once a year, require streamside habitats, and two-year-olds leave home each spring to find their own territories, beavers rarely overpopulate. They are limited to a small fraction of the landscape that is close to waterways. Kits have many predators including hawks, owls and otters. Bears, wolves, dogs and coyotes can also take adults that are especially vulnerable each spring when two-year-olds seek new territories. Accidents are another frequent cause of mortality, including falls into abandoned wells, and traffic accidents. Trapping is the most common source of mortality.
Like many wildlife species, beavers self-regulate by starting to decrease their rate of reproduction when occupancy reaches a certain level. In vast areas without trapping, beaver populations may peak, and then slowly drift down to a sustainable level. By the early 1900s, beavers were almost extirpated from North America due to trapping and draining of lands for agriculture. Estimates of the current population are as low as five percent of those present prior to European settlement. Nonetheless, as beaver reclaim some former territory, conflicts with humans arise.
posted
Now that you mention it, I do seem to recall beavers not breeding very well in captivity or something.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the dining pleasure of "true blue Canucks"...the piece de resistance...includes moose stroganoff and roasted beaver tail."
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: I really don't know. I know so little about contemporary economics and politics that I don't know of any problems other countries might be likely to develop with us, which is why I had to ask if there were actually any threats to start with. Like I said, I can see some head-butting over the Northwest Passage but I think so few provincial-residing Canadians really notice anything in the territories anyway, that it wouldn't have anything like the effect of the sort of invasion you seem to be talking about. Also, I don't think the countries claiming it are likely to start bombing Toronto or Montreal as part of their effort to win. But what do I know? Besides the fact that moose meat actually kind of tastes like roast beef, if I recall, and that I've only really heard of people eating the bread type kind of beaver tails.
Posts: 624 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that America has already become an Empire, and that we're only currently reluctant to admit it. America has attempted to conquer Cuba several times and not because Cuba offered any sort of economic advantage (other than really good cigars) but because there was a genuine belief that it was the destiny of America to do so.
This same destiny is part of what drove people to move to the west coast, and also prompted our acquisitions in the Pacific during the Imperialist expansion.
Also, (and I don't mean to open another can of worms,) from the Native American's point of view, we've been conquerors from the begining.
Admittedly, I can't think of an instance where America has acquired territory by force (unless you count Texas, but they were technically an independant republic at the time) or when America has colonized another land, unless you count the settling of the west.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And our acquisition of texas, arizona, new mexico, and california, was also pretty much a land grab. Heck, we started the mexican war so polk could buy the southwest.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"People say no to America all the time when we ask for something, and we don't execute them, we don't invade them (Iraq being the exception to a 230 year old rule)." Actually, Lyrhawn, if you had lived in Latin America at any point from about 1869 onward, you might have something different to say about this. The US has had a policy for a very long time that sort of defines them as an Empire. It's called Manifest Destiny, and it's still a live and kicking part of US foreign policy.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's funny. I don't remember the US annexing any new territory for some years, now.
Which is precisely the problem. We're bored, we want to see some action. When will you invade Prince Edward Island? They have great potato farms there.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
America does have a shady past when it comes to land grabs. The death of millions of Indians is still on our hands in the west. Hawaii was a land grab.
However this:
"America has attempted to conquer Cuba several times"
Is not true. If we had tried in any serious fashion to conquer Cuba, it would be ours. We've tried third party attempts to get a revolution started there, which is serious meddling, but we haven't landed troops there since the Spanish American War, which doesn't really count, not in the sense that we were trying to conquer it.
If you really want to look at an example of American colonization, you'd have to go to the Philippines, and that was brutal. But that was our only real attempt at it.
Amazing we still get blamed for most of the ills in the world, but no one really every points a finger at Western Europe for the troubles in Africa, much of which resulted from their meddling, not to mention the way they carved up the Middle East, that's all our fault too.
Empire acquire land and subdue people through force. Look at all the times we've gone to war in the 20th century, then tell me how much land we acquired as a result of those wars. Now look at other nations of the world who went to war in the 20th century, and how much land they acquired. What you'll find is that western Europe was far more interested in Empire than America ever was.
By what definition of Empire is America?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We're bored, we want to see some action. When will you invade Prince Edward Island? They have great potato farms there.
Hey now! You don't want to try that. Islanders are *feisty* little potato farmers. Besides, then where would all the Japanese tourists go? Or would the Anne of Green Gables industry be allowed to stay? Wait. You'd make us into a Green Gables theme park, wouldn't you? The whole Island, one big theme park, and we'd all have to wear red wigs and be nice to children and pretend we were Megan Follows every day while we sell t-shirts and Oh God! NOOOOO!!!!!!
Posts: 624 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: "America has tried to conquer Cuba several times."
Is not true. If we had tried in any serious fashion to conquer Cuba, it would be ours. We've tried third party attempts to get a revolution started there, which is serious meddling, but we haven't landed troops there since the Spanish American War, which doesn't really count, not in the sense that we were trying to conquer it
Sorry, I got two seperate wars mixed up in my head. There has been only one attempt on Cuba.
However, I am still curious how our landing in the Spanish American War was not an attempt at conquest. The Cuban rebels at the time were just a small movement that the American Press distorted into a full blown revolution, complete with death camps where cuban revolutionaries were being slaughtered.
First, it seems strange that the American Government should just buy into this propoganda. They didn't, but the war was still fought.
Second, Spain gave into America's demands before any military action was taken. Only afterwards did McKinley ask congress for permission to use force.
My point is not that America actually made a concentrated effort to conquer Cuba, our army was still too devastated and unorganized from the Civil War, but that the Spanish American War was a symptom of Manifest Destiny.
Manifest Destiny is what has made America an Empire, in my mind. Yes, it's arguably been about a 130 years since we made any blatant conquests, but the attitude is still there. Think about the phrases "spreading" or "defending democracy", "making the world safe for ect. ect." What are these but thinly veiled excuses to use our military and spread our political influence? It's kind of like the Romans did in their conquests.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except when Rome conquered they took over body and might. They left those nations with a local government under Roman jurisdiction. Any disagreements with Rome was met with serious consiquences and loss of local power.
When the U.S. "conquered," and that hasn't happened since WWII (we have lost or came to a stalemate since), the U.S. has given it back to the people to govern. True, you could say those nations became a democracy through the actions of the U.S. However, those same nations over the years have defied U.S. expectations and gone against "The U.S. Empire" without any action besides a few harsh words. They could, and to a degree a select few have, become communist and the U.S. wouldn't do anything.
If the U.S. is an Empire, than it is a reluctant and weak form of one. A true Empire has and excertes political and military control outside its own boarders. America only has influence because nations (who claim to hate the U.S. as much as they do) like U.S. culture. They aren't forced into having it. Since you mention "pop-culture" as the ultimate Empire register of U.S. power today, it is more realistic to say that Hollywood is an Empire more than the U.S.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
