Is there an American Empire, or does the US have imperial ambitions?

Dave —

Forum

Dave — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 - 18:35

Ran across a number of frightening articles (mostly by europeans) that the United States is an empire whether it realizes it or not.

This is particularly troubling because it was a theory a number of months back that I thought had disappeared.

I frankly disagree, but that's to be expected isn't it?

I realize a lot of our doctrines and attitudes probably frighten a lot of people into believing we have imperial ambitions - like manifest destiny, american exceptionalism, city on the hill, and the frequent mantra that we are the greatest nation in the world/history.

It looks like a lot of scholars are cheating with the term "imperialism" but it's an interesting notion all the same.

Anyway, I had a thread like this on the old forum and am curious if anyones opinions have changed.

What do you think and why?

You — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 - 20:59

The fact that they dictate to other countries how they expect them to behave does suggest an imperial attitude.

However America IMO does not have the stomach to be a proper empire.

It will have itself to govern, and a semi autonomous 'rest of the world' to bend backwards to accomodate American desires.

Dave — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 - 21:09

[quote="Admin"]However America IMO does not have the stomach to be a proper empire.[/quote]

Yea I think incidents like Abu Ghraib demonstrate that America isn't the sort of country that can stomach the "indescretions" necessary to maintain an empire. Vast displays of brutality don't play well with the American public but are essential for maintaining imperial domination.

I don't think empires are possible in the modern world either... I couldn't imagine the global community being kosher with that anymore.

Dave — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 - 21:18

[quote="irfghan"]Speaking of Abu Ghraib, did anyone read the Metro today?

Metro's good for publishing the story, but that website has been up for a while now.[/quote]

What was the story?

There have been a number out about the findings. Apparently Abu Ghraib was a playland for sociopaths.

The scary thing is they were describing Lyddie England as this values neutral morally and emotionally pliable creature - and I don't know how many of you have gone through basic if any of you at all, but that's basically what they try to turn you into.

The idea of basic is to break you and turn you into a machine that just follows orders.

On top of that marines pride themselves on being "crazy" - it's that full metal jacket type of attitude.

USAF really wasn't like that... basically just a bunch of technology geeks - but basic definitely was.

Our present military training appears at least in my experience to be breeding the Lyddie England types.

I wouldn't be surprised if she got high marks all through training...

The marine corps really scares me sometimes since they don't necessarily see themselves as connected to anything.

Beast — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 - 21:19

[quote="Admin"]No, what did it say?
[/quote]

Frontpage story about how some US troops post pics of mutilated Iraqi and Afghani bodies on the net in exchange them for access to premium porn sites.

[quote="Admin"]
Why O why does metro not put its news online?[/quote]

What you gonna do, right?

Beast — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 - 21:21

[quote="Constantine"]

The scary thing is they were describing Lyddie England as this values neutral morally and emotionally pliable creature - and I don't know how many of you have gone through basic if any of you at all, but that's basically what they try to turn you into.[/quote]

'Values neutral' - what's that when it's at home?

Dave — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 - 21:24

[quote="irfghan"][quote="Constantine"]

The scary thing is they were describing Lyddie England as this values neutral morally and emotionally pliable creature - and I don't know how many of you have gone through basic if any of you at all, but that's basically what they try to turn you into.[/quote]

'Values neutral' - what's that when it's at home?[/quote]

That's the washington sniper when it's at home.

Dave — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 - 21:25

[quote="irfghan"][quote="Admin"]No, what did it say?
[/quote]

Frontpage story about how some US troops post pics of mutilated Iraqi and Afghani bodies on the net in exchange them for access to premium porn sites.

[quote="Admin"]
Why O why does metro not put its news online?[/quote]

What you gonna do, right?[/quote]

Oh wow..

What branch of the military did they say they were from?

Dave — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 - 21:31

[quote="irfghan"][quote="Constantine"]
Oh wow..

What branch of the military did they say they were from?[/quote]

Can't remember the Metro story.

But here it is on CNN.com.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/09/28/web.photos/[/quote]

That's worse than I thought...

The Army by and large has this attitude that they are "Defending the Constitution" and traditionally place a higher emphasis on obeying orders only if they are moral.

I've always thought the military has 2 big problems, it desensitizes people (like lyddie england) and it attracks sociopaths.

Dave — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 - 21:34

[quote="irfghan"][quote="Constantine"]
PC term?

I'm not sure what you are asking...[/quote]

Politically correct.

Does 'values neutral' mean immoral, barbaric, devoid of human feelling, etc?[/quote]

Yea I caught on,

Values neutral means devoid of human feeling - back home thats barbaric sociopathic sinister etc.

On the battle field that's the obedient soldier.

Don't get me wrong - branches of the military differ, and they are taught the rules of war.

But at the same time they are totally restructured to take any order and perform any task.

It's like pretty words don't really matter when you look at the reality of the training.