BF2S Forums Is America an Empire?

AussieReaper wrote:

13/f/taiwan wrote:

it wasn't actually about communism.

Domino theory. Look it up.

hahaha.

13/f/taiwan wrote:

aussiereaper what is your definition of an empire?

Maybe you can explain how overthrowing a foreign government is building an Empire rather than just destabilising another country for economic gain?

RTHKI wrote:

installing leadership that you can control

...is still not building an empire by any definition

it was about waving uncle sam's cock around the globe

Macbeth wrote:

DUnlimited wrote:

RTHKI wrote:

installing leadership that you can control

...is still not building an empire by any definition

You guys seem to have a 19th century view of global politics. Try reading some books and stuff.

durr neo-imperlisms and global captialisms.

Cybargs wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

DUnlimited wrote:

...is still not building an empire by any definition

You guys seem to have a 19th century view of global politics. Try reading some books and stuff.

durr neo-imperlisms and global captialisms.

please say something intelligent for once in your insignificant little life.

i get the impression you are constantly making wise-cracks and asinine little snipes because you are, at root, terrified of your intellectual inadequacy. you don't want to commit to saying anything in this forum beyond 3 lines of pithy joke-making because you are afraid people will laugh at you. say something worth reading or fuck off.

the fact that the banks and oil industry, and formerly the whole post-ww2 military-industrial complex, are so closely allied to and financially in-bed with the US state, is evidence enough of where politics and supposedly 'disinterested' global capital intersects. it's not just america, but every western state in the post-empire stage has tried to maintain links and spheres of influence through business and financial exertion. thatcher was one of the most notorious inside-dealers and arms traders of all british leaders. the bush government and its ties to large corporations has been written on at such length that it's depressing and exhausting. i just read somewhere in the last week that condoleeza rice has an oil tanker named after her. lol. heads of state and heads of oil companies, simultaneously. secretaries of defense/vp's who are also ceo's of giant private defense companies. hmmm. and people say 'empire doesn't exist in the 20th century'. laughing my ass off. the only difference is that they wear suits and barter in back-rooms with briefcases, rather than a crown and scepter and army livery.

i think the 21st century thus far  has been defined by war and conflict where national resources are pretty much the most transparent motive. nobody in 100 years' time who reads a history book and sees america cosying up to dictators like saddam, and then a few years later publicly hanging him and 'renovating' his house is going to see it as a 'war on terror' or some high-minded western liberal bullshit about 'bringing freedom'. in 100 years' time people are going to simply see the facts. you don't shake hands with a dictator and agree to lucrative deals and then kill him a few years later because you changed your mind about human freedom.

i also think when the locus of power shifts to china/asia, that america's 20th century history will be revised quite a lot. i think central/latin/south america is going to raise some thorny points of historical contention.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-04 04:55:00)

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

what about the soviet union and the eastern bloc? that's pretty imperialistic.

i was being sarcastic, man, though i think others in this thread actually posted that crap about emperor being a requirement as an argument.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i think the 21st century thus far  has been defined by war and conflict where national resources are pretty much the most transparent motive. nobody in 100 years' time who reads a history book and sees america cosying up to dictators like saddam, and then a few years later publicly hanging him and 'renovating' his house is going to see it as a 'war on terror' or some high-minded western liberal bullshit about 'bringing freedom'. in 100 years' time people are going to simply see the facts. you don't shake hands with a dictator and agree to lucrative deals and then kill him a few years later because you changed your mind about human freedom.

i also think when the locus of power shifts to china/asia, that america's 20th century history will be revised quite a lot. i think central/latin/south america is going to raise some thorny points of historical contention.

First off the new century began in 1991 with the fall of the soviet union which fundamentally changed global politics and relations. Many of the problems today are a product of cold war diplomacy, as is the Saddam issue - which should be approached with that context in mind. The view on his relationship with the US you're giving here is hopelessly simplistic and short-sighted.

Secondly, the Iraq war is hardly the most important conflict so far. Most people still don't know what to make of this conflict because nobody has really been allowed a peek inside the minds of Bush and his close associates. Maybe they just were a group of misguided idiots with too much faith in Fukuyama's theories. Or maybe they really were these 'evil-empire' advocates who invaded Iraq for personal gain. IMHO, the oil argument has been done to death and I've never really felt that it was either eye opening or a very convincing argument in explaining a massive conventional military invasion and the subsequent 8 year occupation of the country. People just seem to keep on piling up very indirect and/or vague 'evidence' of their already established hypothesis without deepening the analysis or taking into consideration any other circumstances surrounding the war.

Whatever the case it certainly is one of the most controversial events of the 21st century. As for defining: no. That 'prize' goes to 9/11 and its aftermath, in the 'grand scheme of things' Afghanistan has been infinitely more important and far-reaching in its implications and consequences. The rise of China and the reorganization of Europe post 1990 are two other extremely interesting/important subjects which will probably end up identifying the 21st century.

Waving my dick in your face with my course literature? hardly. If I were to dog you about this one paragraph of nonsense you wrote for the coming year like you did with jay and hegel then you'd be allowed to say that. Seems all I did was make you crawl out of your own ass for a milisecond there.

I'm pretty sure you were thinking of Iraq while you were busy defining the 21st century by 'war and conflict over resources'. w/e, carry on uzi.