Who opposes a US Empire?

[Ein]

It's going, since WW2 as far as i can estimate.

So who here is against it?
and who here is for it?

Against.

[leftofthedial]

1. against

The species needs to get beyond that.

[BayCityProgressive]

2. Against

Chompsky details it nicely...Dems are no better than the GOP when it comes to foreign policy....really makes me mad.

[Ein]

3. Chomsky!

Buying his book, Manufacturing Consent, on the recorded advice of Biafra... I got into politics.

The man is my superhero.

[LinkToEnd]

38. Chomsky!

I'm just getting through reading "What Uncle Same Really Wants," it's great. I am definately against the American Empire and I think that it is the worst empire of the 20th century, right up with Nazi Germany and the Soviets! Chomsky has written extensively about this, and it's very good coming from a person who denied the holocaust ever happened.

[Ein]

41. Nice RW talking point.

Point me to a source other than Horowitz on the holocaust denial, cause that article is a transparent lie.

[redeye]

47. Werner Cohn...

...in his book "Partners in Hate."

[Ein]

50. ,,,

http://monkeyfist.com:8080/ChomskyArchive/essays/outlook_html

Same lie about the article he supposedly wrote, search its name and just look at the text, it has Chomsky quotes, but was not written by him.

[not systems]

4. against

It is taking us down the wrong path.

We become less civilized and likeable
month by month.

To be feared rather than respected and
trusted has effects that we can't yet
guess.

The national security state created during
and after WWII would make me happy beside
this crypto-con corporatist state that has
usurped the republic.

I think even JEdgar might join the ACLU.

[Vernunft]

5. In Europe the US Empire is neither feared nor respected

It´s more like an elderly uncle who´s always been somewhat excentric finally went over the brink. And while we viewed him as generally benign in the past decades we now have to realize that there are traits coming to light we don´t like at all and can´t tolerate forever. It´s time for a legal guardian and a closed old age home for poor old Uncle Sam...

And please nobody think that any result in 2004 will amend that impression. It´ll be decades until we will have the same level of trust and friendship.

[not systems]

8. If you feel no fear...

you not looking close enough.

The mood of the state has been getting
downright hate and war.

Not our finest hour.

Hope is the next election.

Or a legal silver arrow to bring down
the administration.

[Tinoire]

6. Against . No one died and made us God. n/t

[ErasureAcer]

7. my thoughts exactly. n/t

.

[Mairead]

24. But not for want of our trying :-((((

[Syn_Dem]

9. against

n/t

[IndianaGreen]

10. Empires always corrode from the inside and are inherently evil

America was never envisioned as an Empire by the Founding Fathers, and Mothers. Freedom and democracy are incompatible with empire building, an empire maintenance.

Every empire in history ended badly for irs citizens!

[bluestateguy]

11. "A republic not an empire"-- Patrick Buchanan

It's all fine and good to be involved around the world. I think we should be, but I will not participate in an empire building project. George W. Bush can count me out.

[AntiLempa]

26. This isn't Bush's creation.

Could Clinton, Carter, FDR, JFK, and Teddy Roosevelt count you out too?

[leftyandproud]

12. I do I do

bad imperialists bad!

[rucky]

13. I'm also against....

...killing, lying, stealing, hunger, war, pollution. But those topics appear to be up for debate as well. Thanks, PNAC.:crazy:

[Jacobin]

14. FDR got Britain to agree to dismantle its empire in the Atlantic Charter

in exchange for help with the war against Hitler's nazis.

The U.S. empire needs to be dismantled. It is abhorent to what this country (used to) stands for.

[Aidoneus]

16. at what period did it not stand for the same?

When we were invading the Philippines & Cuba? Treating Central America as a playground for the Marines and business interests? Violently and aggressively seizing lands from Mexico? Near-genocide of the natives and taking their lands? I don't think this current process is at all some deviation from the past, much as it may comfort one to think such..

[Hubert Flottz]

18. When the Federal Reserve started!

Under President Wilson, who admitted later it was a grave mistake!

[redeye]

15. Define "Empire"

If you mean colonialism and military conquest à la the British empire or the Iraq invasion, then I oppose. If you mean economic domination à la the British empire in the 18th century or the US in Latin America, then I oppose. If you mean global influence or cultural globalization, however, then I support and encourage, the US currently being the only agency that can tear down authoritarian traditions thruout the world (mainly but not only in China, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia).

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

17. long before WWII - at least since the Spanish-American war

Didn't we take over the Phillipines, Cuba, and a few more after that? At the risk of sounding like Pat Buchanan, I'd like to see American stay a democratic republic and not be an empire.

[redeye]

19. The two are not contradictory

A republic is a government that is not a monarchy; an empire is a nation that takes over other nations. The USA in that repsect is both a republic and an empire.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

25. no, a country that rules over another is not a democratic republic

If a government is ruling over people who don't have a say in the running of the government, you can't call it a democracy, and if they don't have representatives in a Senate of some kind, you can't call it a republic.

[redeye]

31. Why not?

A republic is defined as the absence of monarchy. A democracy is defined as a rule by the people - not necessarily the people of the dominated nations. Britain was an empire and yet it was completely democratic - at least after it gave women equal suffrage, but that's another story.

[AntiLempa]

32. Democratic?

So you are telling me that all of the British Empires subjects had the right to vote? Maybe the English did, but what about the Africans or Asians under British control?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

33. not at all

"A republic is defined as the absence of monarchy."

I've never heard that before. I thought the distinguishing characteristic of a republic was a Senate, at least, throughout history those kinds of governments have been considered republics.

"A democracy is defined as a rule by the people - not necessarily the people of the dominated nations."

That's ridiculous on its face. You can exclude any group of people under the government you want, and it's still considered democracy? Of course not.

"Britain was an empire and yet it was completely democratic - at least after it gave women equal suffrage, but that's another story."

That's even more absurd. Britain has never been completely democratic.

[redeye]

39. You always thought, but you were wrong

There exist many republics without upper houses; Finland comes to mind. Besides, the US has a Senate, so it's a republic either way, even if it's an empire.

And as for democracy, it's usually taken to mean a rule of the majority and rights for minorities. That's a political system that has nothign to do with international relations and imperialism. And yes, you can exclude people and still be considered democratic.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

40. redeye, get back to me in ten years

When you learn the difference between labels and reality, then we'll talk, okay?

[redeye]

48. Get back to me in ten years...

...when you learn to argue against the argmuent, not against the arguer.

[nolabels]

37. Do some of the people come here to learn?

I was always wanting to read all the posts and check the links with all this stuff. But lately its seems like baiting. Dang man, okay try this link. Go to Bibliography,and check out some of them links, really interesting things there.


Original article is at http://la.indymedia.org/news/2002/11/22725.php

(snip)
basic stats for US imperialism
by cecil • Sunday November 24, 2002 04:18 PM


a reference guide for activists.

Basic Statistics for United States Imperialism

Contents:

1—list of interventions for “regime change”
2—list of air warfare campaigns
3—list of client states
4—list of states held by debt-leverage imperialism
5—list of foreign base hosts
6—list of murder toll
7—list of unsavory rightists supported
8—list of perverted international bodies
9—list of interventions for opposing liberation
10—list of interventions pre-1941
11—list of covert operations
12—list of front organizations
13—list of low intensity conflicts
14—list of proxy wars
15—list of foreign policy doctrines
16—list of propaganda campaigns


Bibliography
Useful Periodicals
Relevant Hyperlinks


1. Chronological list of interventions, with the purpose of effecting “regime change,” attempted or materially supported by the United States—whether primarily by means of overt force (OF), covert operation (CO), or subverted election (SE):

a) OF and SE imply, necessarily, prior and continuing CO.

b) OF = directly applied state terrorism by the United States repressive apparatus i.e. the Departments of War/Defense, Energy, Treasury, and State. N.B. the formation of the National Security Council (1947) and the Office of Homeland Security (2002).

c) CO = reconnaissance, classical coups d’etat, legal harassment, disinformation (through media, legal, NGO, student, labor, and other front groups), bribery, sabotage, assassination, proxy warfare, running ratlines for fascist émigré groups, and assorted other clandestine activities.

d) SE = a particular species of CO, comparatively non-violent, high plausible deniability, usually involves dumping tons of cash and campaign technologies into the hands of rightist groups during elections, sowing discord in leftist parties, buying up media space in order to destabilize electorates, tampering directly with ballot results, and hiring jackboots to actively threaten and brutalize voters in the last resort. NB many subverted elections are preceded by lengthy terror campaigns (e.g. Nicaragua, El Salvador, Yugoslavia, etc).

It should go without saying that the following entries are simplified; only the major “payoff” year is listed, where applicable. Most attempted overthrows were preceded by lengthy preparations—vast right wing conspiracies, indeed. NB that this list remains under construction; new data will be added in the next installment.

(snip)

P.s. I think all political parties that start with "R" should protect their own homes first, and their own bussiness second.
(yes that means I am against Imperialism)

[RichM]

20. I oppose it. The US has 5% of the world's population, & consumes

more than a third of its resources. Inequality like this can only be maintained by force, which is, as IG noted above, inherently corrupting.

[ma4t]

21. Sorry, I can't let this go.

I dont' want to be too argumentative but I have to refute Ein's contention that a US empire has been going since WW2.

Under any reasonable definition of the word "empire" the US did not establish an empire at the end of WW2 or at any time since then. A little historical perspective is in order for this discussion.

When WW2 came to a close the US was the sole combatant power whose armed services and military infrastructure were substantially more powerful than when the war started. Even among the victors, the UK and USSR had suffered a decline in fighting ability, troop quality and arms manufacturing capacity to the extent that the US was supplying a large portion, if not the majority, of arms, ammunition and supplies to both.

At the close of WW2 the 3rd/5th fleet was the largest navy in the world. Note, that was just one fleet, not the whole US Navy. In fact some of the task groups formed in late 1944 and 1945 were larger than the whole navies of other countries. The Marines had the 3rd largest air force in the world, preceded only by the Navy and the Army Air Corps. At that time the US had roughly 16 million men under arms and were the sole possesors of atomic weapons. The Navy had over 100 aircraft carriers in commission.

Not only was the US a superpower, it was a superpower that could outweigh the next 8 or 10 largest powers combined. Is all this just chest-thumping? No, it is just a simple recitation of easily verifiable facts. However; it serves to illustrate that if the US had wanted to occupy, say Brazil or Greece or Borneo or, for that matter, Poland there would not have been a nation on earth who could have prevented it. I'm not saying that there would not have been a cost - we had just paid a terrible cost to occupy part of Germany and Japan. However; if the US had the will to do it the outcome would have been just as certain.

Now, given this, why did we not just move into any country we wanted and take over? Why not just hang on to the Phillipines? Why not make the former French colonies into American ones? The simple answer is that the American public was tired of war and wanted it all to be over with. They wanted to "bring the boys home", and right now. Read up on "Operation Magic Carpet" to see what lengths we went to in order to demobilize and return the troops. I would defy anyone here at DU to find any historical precedent for this sort of voluntary demobilization by a victorius power.

The whole point of this discussion is to point out the simple fact that we don't have an American empire because the American public doesn't want one. We did not strip Japan and Germany or hold POW's for 5, 10, 15 years like the USSR. We did not annex any of the conquered territory. We did none of the things that are associated with the word "empire" as it is commonly used. Granted, we are a dominant force in the world culturally and economically because people the world over choose to see our movies and read our books, they choose to purchase our products and, by the thousands, they choose to attend our universities. To call that cultural and economic dominance and "empire" is to distort language out of all meaning. The claim that we are in imperial power is not some cute little comment to deride any particular set of politicians; it is a slander on the American public as a whole.

[not systems]

28. reasonable definition of the word "empire"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empire&r=67

Says:

1) A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.

2) An extensive enterprise under a unified authority

3) Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control

At the end of WWII the US had in my opinion a millitary empire.

"We did not annex any of the conquered territory."

I believe the residents of Okinawa would disagree.

About the claim that we are now an imperial power, I'm
am sure that you are aware that "empire" has become an
article of faith among the AIE and PNAC types who now
run the country.

"a slander on the American public as a whole"

I agree with you here but the facts on the ground have
escaped your idealistic image of who and what we have
become.

[RichM]

29. This is a laughable chunk of rightwing propaganda.

Your main point is utterly ridiculous: "we don't have an American empire because the American public doesn't want one."

We certainly do have an empire, & have had one since the Spanish-American War. The "will of the American public" plays no role in this matter only because it has been obviated: the clever little trick is to HAVE an empire without publicly acknowledging it. The form of the empire is not the classic one of direct military occupation & territorial annexation; rather, it's "neo-imperialism," an improved more cost-efficient method whereby you get all the advantages of controlling the economies & political life of smaller countries, without the expense & adverse PR of always using armies of occupation. (Why send in the troops when economic blackmail or using the CIA to foment a coup will do just as nicely?)

The US has bases in about 100 countries around the world. It has fleets in every ocean. Its "defense" budget is far bigger than the rest of the world combined. Its true colors are revealed by the current idiocies of trying to develop offensive capabilities based in space (and calling it, with typical dishonesty, a "Missile Defense Shield") & as well as new-generation nuclear weapons. That's not an empire?

It is true that the US public does not regard the US as having an empire; this merely demonstrates the remarkable success of US propaganda in systematically deceiving its own population.

[AntiLempa]

30. Latin America?

It is true that the US empire doesn't mirror that of Rome, but it is still an empire. The West, led by the US, doesn't have to invade countries in order to control them. Not only is it expensive, it is unpopular. There are easier ways to control countries. The best is example is Latin America. The US government doesn't officially rule the various countries, but they do have a great "influence." I don't believe it's because people choose to listen to our music or watch our movies, but rather because the CIA "encourages" coups of governments that we don't like. (Allende, the Sandinista government, Aristide, Mosadegh (SP), and Chavez come to mind.)

If they don't support a coup, they don't mind supporting terrorists (in the case of Cuba) or training them (in the case of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly the School of the Americas).

There is no doubt in my mind that America is in fact an empire. Theodore Roosevelt was openly imperialistic, Carter supported the Muhjadeen, and Clinton forced World Bank policies on Haiti. These are the acts of an empire. What about Hawaii?

"Today's empires are tomorrow's ashes."

[Emboldened Chimp]

34. A well-thought out assessment that I must disagree with

We made our imperial foray well before WWII; namely, after the Spanish-American war. We annexed the Philippines, Guam and Hawaii. We established a protectorate over Cuba. We spurred a revolt in Panama. After WWII, we were left in a position where we could basically do as we wished. In the name of fighting communism, we staged coups the world over and, when necessary, intervened militarily (Korea, Vietnam.) And though we may not have annexed any of the territories after WWII, we certainly left behind many troops and military bases. Our presence is just about everywhere, and not everyone wants us there (just look to South Korea and Okinawa for examples.)

To say that we have not acted as an imperial power is an exercise in naiveté. True, we haven't been overtly imperial in the past, but the elements are there: a military presence in many countries and economic domination. Now, with our adventure into Iraq, we have officially become an empire. This is so because we invaded and are now occupying a sovereign nation for the extraction of natural resources. And before mentioning that we're there to liberate, remember that the British Empire went into Iraq under the same pretenses.

Our problem is not acknowledging who we really are in the world. And you're right in saying that Americans don't want empire. Our country was created to countermand that very idea. But unfortunately, the pursuit of greed and power trumps life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This has been humankind’s greatest failure, and it will lead, as it has to empires past, to our eventual downfall.

On edit: grammar

[newyawker99]

36. Hi ma4t!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Arkady]

22. American Empire

I'm not convinced that, in the classical sense of the word, the US has an "Empire." We're certainly not the same as the old colonial empires of the 17-19th centuries. Maybe the word hedgemony is more descriptive. Or maybe I'm just splitting hairs.

[Mairead]

23. Against**3

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. I Oppose Empires

but if there is going to be a hierachachy I want to be at the top of it.

[sweetheart]

35. some truth would be refreshing

If the american empire was discussed as such, with clear historical and present media recognition of the overseas protectorates, the huge military bases and defense arrangements (read provincial tithing).

If we could have an open chat about it, then i'm for what the people are for.... but as we are deceieved and deliberately misinformed, the people in government are running a scam-empire. I am totally against "the people"'s government running a scam on the people.

The empire should be discussed and openly democratic... that a measure to be part of the american commonwealth is liberal democracy... as that is not the case at all, rather dictatorship, then truly the empire is a crap empire mounded on the backs of people in the world who have no vote in the new totalitarian faux-democracy.

As i am for human rights, universal sufferage and democracy... of course i could never be for an empire that perverts these words by its very existance. The american empire is literally a lie... a lie to everyone... a criminal deception for the purposes of theft... just the latest page in a regrettable book called "manifest destiny and other dystopic rationalizations for mass murder and repression."

[JohnKleeb]

42. me

:raises hand:

[paulsbc]

43. against

Completely against our involvement in any land right now beyond Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, you know, the 9/11 people?

Pull our troops, and our money, out of all foreign lands and stop all foreign aid except for humanitarian missions carried out by Americans in foreign lands, and only those missions that can be verified as helping the populations directly, and to that end only after our own population is taken care of first.

Go back to the "don't tread on me" philosophy and lets focus inward towards helping people HERE, especially those out of work.

[Ein]

44. Welcome to DU!

Well spoken.

[paulsbc]

45. thanks...

not sure how well i'll fit here, I'm not that mean by nature, and I have a couple of views that are anti-Democrat I think... My positions are as follows:

-> socially liberal: for gay marriage, polygamy and anything else consenting adults want to do that doesn't affect anyone else. for legalization of most drugs (sans things like heroin), and the immediate release of all people in jail on non-violent "drug war" crimes. for abortion, until such time that brain activity in the fetus starts, then I'm against it

-> taxes and government spending: for reduced taxes and reduced government spending. that said, i'm for keeping the social welfare programs that help people, for keeping federal job programs and business assistance programs, especially to the small business owners and minority owned businesses. for cutting defense spending, removing all foreign aid and military intervention/bases except those that hit back, and hard, for 9/11. for a reduction or removal in any government spending on non-essential human related services, which includes art, NASA, and a host of other things. For the SEC and other agencies to safeguard trading, stocks, etc., and to keep the large corporations in line. Too long of a list here, but I once took the federal government and cut out 60% of our spending easily.

-> affirmative action: here I'm probably in the minority here :) Don't support any program that forces hiring of minorities. But I do support preferences for hiring (and awarding contracts, for example, above). In other words, I don't force a company to hire blacks or latinos, but if they have a certain ethnic diversity in their workplace, they get tax breaks. So, there is a financial incentive for them, without mandated quotas, etc.

so, is that still "Welcome to DU" or is it now "get the F out?" :)

[Ein]

46. I think

you'll fit in real well here. WELCOME TO DU!

[redeye]

49. Helping people here...

...neglects the fact that the USA as world power has a reponsibility to the world. An Indian is equal and not inferior to an American; why, then, should the world power discriminate against him in job opportunity?

[paulsbc]

51. i understand your view

but do not accept it :) just because we have awesome power doesn't mean we should use it. in fact, being the awesome power that we are, one can argue that we should not use it but in only the most dire circumstance / in direct response to an attack (like 9/11)

On your other point, I do not think that a non-American, in another country, is EQUAL to an American or a person immigrating to the US as far as tax dollars use. In other words, I'm not for us being:

-> an aid giving country: note: this is TAX FUNDED aid. I'm all for charitable aid and business aid, just not taxing the working class of this country while they don't have health care to build a bridge for someone in Africa or give them AIDS medicine.

-> a military empire: we don't belong in other countries, get back to the "don't tread on me" model. I'm actually for a MUCH stronger response in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Saudi Arabia than most here probably, but do not feel it wise to have our troops and our money, spent overseas in other areas. I'm also against Liberia, Congo, Balkins, etc., etc., and feel that if someone doesn't attack us, they can do what they want. I'm not for being the worlds' police.

Now, on the employment front, I'm for giving tax advantages to those companies that hire Americans and do not outsource their work. I'm for protection of the American worker and am still thinking through ways to do that. Being in the IT world, I've seen tons of jobs go to India in the last 3 years because they are 1/3 the price of an American worker. The companies that do that have very little patriotism, IMO, and very little thought for the worker, and that should change.