Bring It On!

By Jersey McJones on Jun 7, 2007 | Reply

Oh, and my answers would be…

1: Yes.

2: We have a military presense in 140 countries.

3: Why not?

JMJ

By Jersey McJones on Jun 7, 2007 | Reply

(The last one was a snark…)

JMJ

By steve on Jun 7, 2007 | Reply

1. No

2 Because

3. No

By Jersey McJones on Jun 7, 2007 | Reply

Because what?

JMJ

By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 7, 2007 | Reply

1. Yes.

2. “In another sense, the U.S. satisfies the definition of an empire, because it possesses sovereignty over territories which it has not annexed as states, such as Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands.” –Wikipedia

3. It is probably long past time we got out of the Empire business.

By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 7, 2007 | Reply

I don’t include nations in which we have troops. How much sovereignty do we exercize over, say, Germany and Japan and South Korea?

By ken grandlund on Jun 7, 2007 | Reply

1-Yes

2-Militarily we extend across the globe. Socially, we export our culture all over the place where it is absorbed and molded into the host culture. Economically we drive world markets and finances. Ecologically we drive the push for development and its twin destruction. And politically we have our finger in just about every pie we can.

3-No, empire’s are yesterday’s political entities. It’s past time to move towards a new era of international cooperation and global respect, such as it can be achieved.

By Jersey McJones on Jun 7, 2007 | Reply

Would we all agree that it is time to begin removing our armed forces from moct of the 140 countries in which we now stand?

JMJ

By Chris on Jun 7, 2007 | Reply

1. NO

2. For one thing we do not fit the definition since we have no king or emperor. With the exception of Iraq our troops overseas only have potential political power to the extant that the host nation believes that they are necessary for their survial.

For the most part the spread of our culture is because the people want the things our culture provides. Remember that we became the first nation in history where the well off greatly out numberred the poor. Also by being a nation of immigrants a steady stream good news went out to the rest of the world. How many people had a cousin, brother, sister, or uncle that came here and made a great life for themselves.

After WWII we were a colossus striding across the world. For the better part we were a massive force of good and many people in other countries still remember that.

As for our territories I’m not sure we could get rid of them without abandoning them. Puerto Rico has voted many times to maintain their current status.

3. No

By SteveIL on Jun 8, 2007 | Reply

1 - No. I think it’s one of those overused words simply to inspire fear. Take Iraq as an example; had the government taken over the oil fields, kept troops nearby to secure them, parceled it out oil producing contracts to American oil companies, doled out enough to whatever Iraqi government exists to keep it quiet, and shoot anybody trying to take them away, then you could say we are an empire. That is not happening.

2 - As Craig said, we don’t exercise sovereignty over countries where we have troops. Nor do we have sovereignty over where we have influence. Like foreign governments do here, we have influence with other foreign governments; our government is a lobbying group in other countries.

3 - No. I agree with those who say those days are dead and buried. Empires are passe.

By Jersey McJones on Jun 8, 2007 | Reply

Answers:

1: We are a military and economic empire with a presence throughout the world. We are mostly not a force for good, especially in the Third World, and anyone who thinks so is a fool. You know how you know we’re an empire? Everyone except us thinks we are!

2: To make money for international corporations and the military industrial complex.

3: No. We should withdraw from global dominance. We aren’t helping the world - we’re making it worse. It’s obvious, and again, only a fool wouldn’t see it.

JMJ

By SteveIL on Jun 8, 2007 | Reply

First, turning the U.S. into a third-world country will not be beneficial to anybody, especially the American people.

Second, withdrawing from what Jersey is calling global dominance (whatever that means) will leave a power vacuum, and there is always some government ready to fill it. Militarily, the only two nations that can remotely express that kind of power are Russia and China.

Third, as much military and economic dominance as we have in the world, we still rely (some say too much, and I tend to agree) on other governments for trade, especially in commodities such as oil. As much raw power this country has to truly dominate things, we actually don’t. Otherwise all the Middle East oil would be owned by American companies and protected by American troops. While we do have troops doing some of that, it is being done for those that are truly profiting from it, the owners. And that isn’t the U.S.

By Jersey McJones on Jun 8, 2007 | Reply

SteveIL,

“…turning the U.S. into a third-world country will not be beneficial to anybody,”

I agree. You cons should really stop doing that.

“…withdrawing from what Jersey is calling global dominance (whatever that means) will leave a power vacuum,”

We don’t have to completely withdraw, but we can certainly draw down our presense quite a bit. It just isn’t necessary.

“…we still rely (some say too much, and I tend to agree) on other governments for trade,”

We could easily fix that, but international corporations and the military industrial complex won’t let it happen.

JMJ