Yes there is an empire and the US has imperial ambitions.
22% (4 votes)
Yes there is an empire and the US has imperial ambitions.
22% (4 votes)
Yes there is an empire but the US doesn't have imperial ambitions.
6% (1 vote)
Yes there is an empire but the US doesn't have imperial ambitions.
6% (1 vote)
No there is no empire but the US has imperial ambitions.
17% (3 votes)
No there is no empire but the US has imperial ambitions.
17% (3 votes)
No there is no empire and the US has no imperial ambitions.
6% (1 vote)
No there is no empire and the US has no imperial ambitions.
6% (1 vote)
Total votes: 18
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?
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.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
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.
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.
I think Global governance is the order of the day for all financial elites including those in America.
American power has always been based on finance rather than conquest like lets say the British empire.
No, what did it say?
Why O why does metro not put its news online?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
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.
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.
What you gonna do, right?
'Values neutral' - what's that when it's at home?
That's the washington sniper when it's at home.
Oh wow..
What branch of the military did they say they were from?
What is it a PC term for?
PC term?
I'm not sure what you are asking...
Can't remember the Metro story.
But here it is on CNN.com.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/09/28/web.photos/
Oh I read you - at home we pretty well call that sociopathic, or evil.
On the battle field we call that obedience.
Pretty frightening isn't it?
Politically correct.
Does 'values neutral' mean immoral, barbaric, devoid of human feelling, etc?
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.
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.