Directly from the horse's mouth: The US is an imperialistic state

[Deleted]

https://youtu.be/ablI1v9PXpI?t=24s


- For over a century, the US wants to prevent an alliance between russia and germany at all costs.
-the US acts outside the NATO.
- The US has the historical unique position of controlling all seven seas. No country has done that before.
-Imperialistic countries who try to govern directly, fail. Britain didnt occupy india. They turned the states against eachother. Rome had installed pro roman kings (puppet regime).
- Ronald reagan supported both sides in the Ian/Iraq war (1980-1988) which proved tremendously successful.
- The US can not occupy Eurasia, but they can support both conflicting sides and if neccessary use spoiling attacks that keep the enemy off balance.
- "There is still a problem in admitting that we are an imperialistic state"

The cold, hard truth and they freely admit it. People will still stay ignorant and think there is anything else than economical interest at play here. Yeah, human rights, democracy, gay rights, dictator who kills his people... are all pretext to calm the gullibles and instruments used to throw at enemies. But who cares about Saudi Arabia killing gays when we can bash russia for some gay tax that doesn't even exist.

I am out of pearls to throw...

[SL1200]

The video is edited.

[Deleted]

The video is edited.

yes, it has german subtitles, is shortened and some things (like the intermarium) were explained with a picture.

[Skroe]

Oh so that explains House Resolution HR 2107 - The National Anthem Act of 2015

Whereas the national anthem is the symbol of American ideals and freedom around the world: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) supports the goals and ideals of the National Anthem Project;

(2) commends the American citizens who have participated in this project; and

(3) instructs that the new anthem be composed by John Williams be orchestrally composed emphasizing powerful brass instruments and the menacing sound of the instruments’ low registers. Melodically, the theme is constantly moving in the downward direction, suggesting the heavy hand of freedom.

Good golly good gosh get a hobby.

[SL1200]

Well I watched the video and don't know what to make of it. I am not a big fan of my country's foreign policy. Far too agressive, and it feels like we create more problems than we solve. I would like to return to isolationism. It served our country well in the past.

[Skroe]

Seriously though I'm not sure what your point is. First of all, STRATFOR and George Friedman is a think tank / strategy group, not a government organization (though he advises governements). Second of all a superpower(ANY hegemon) preventing or curbing the rise or ambitions of other rival superpowers is great power behavior 101. That goes back to Ancient Greece (the Thucydides trap). There is legitimately nothing new about this.

The US doesn't even hide it. It says very clearly in defense planning documents. I quote the Congressional Research Service in their review of the Navy's 30 year ship building plan (an annual document) and many documents relating to US grand strategy:

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42784.pdf
http://news.usni.org/2014/03/20/docu...nvolving-china

U.S. Strategic Goal of Preventing Emergence of Regional Hegemon in Eurasia

As mentioned earlier, some observers believe that China is pursuing a goal of becoming a
regional hegemon in its part of Eurasia, and that achieving a greater degree of control over its
near-seas region is a part of this effort. From a U.S. standpoint, such an effort would be highly
significant, because it has been a longstanding goal of U.S. grand strategy to prevent the
emergence of a regional hegemon in one part of Eurasia or another (see “U.S. Grand Strategy”
below).

Any superpower not doing this isn't doing it right. How assertive is the US about this? Well look at England and their empire. Most folks don't realize, World War II ended and there were three Superpowers - the US, USSR and the British Empire. And with the Suez Crisis the French and British made a play for holding onto global power. Except the world of the three superpowers was far less predictable and reliable than the world with two. So the US didn't side with the UK in it, and spent a great deal of energy on decolonization in subsequent decades.

Even with the UK. Our mother country. Our closest friend in the world. Because allowing rivals is dangerous and undesirable and the US decided it wasn't going to do that a least fifty years before any of us were born.

Is it 'imperial' though? That's a loaded word and draped in the imagery of actual named empires. The global hegemony the US built has a lot more to it than that. And more specifically the actions it has taken across decades to build / maintain / retain that (successful and unsuccessful alike) weren't necessarily "imperial" in nature. Rather the benefits of it that may come to be identified as "imperial" were incidental. NATO, for example, to keep the US in, the Germans down and the Russians out" as the old saying goes, did have the incidental effect of preventing the growth of a rival non-english speaking industrial Western global power. Was that the intent? No. Was that the effect? Certainly.

[Independent voter]

A free Canada is proof we're not Imperial.

[Malachi256]

From wikipedia, "Imperialism is "a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means"... Its precise meaning continues to be debated by scholars."

If you take a more liberal definition, I'd say yes. We've absolutely exerted influence around the world, politically, economically, socially, even spiritually. We've meddled in other countries' affairs. The real question is - what would the world be like if we hadn't? I know most around here would say, "Better!" but I'm not so sure.

If you take a more strict definition, I'd say no. We have not conquered and colonized like the imperialists of 18th and 19th centuries. Again, I wonder how the world would be if someone else (Japan or Germany perhaps?) had gotten the bomb first, or if Russia had won the cold war.

[Deleted]

Seriously though I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is quoted here

The cold, hard truth and they freely admit it. People will still stay ignorant and think there is anything else than economical interest at play here. Yeah, human rights, democracy, gay rights, dictator who kills his people... are all pretext to calm the gullibles and instruments used to throw at enemies. .

You guys build yourselves as the "world's benefactors" with such great pathos, and most of you eat it up like chips. The US deserves big respect for it's machinations, but my issue is with people being propagandized to think there are noble intentions here and the display of hypocricy. Driving the opposition towards an impasse and then being oh so shocked that he acts accordingly while having this hypocritical moral highground backed by media and the masses ( the media that freely looks the other way when you tell them to) is what truly disgusts me.

Is it 'imperial' though? That's a loaded word

would you prefer if I said "moderate imperialism" ?

[Berengil]

I'm no silly flag-waver, but even I can see that as imperial powers go, the United States has been the most benevolent of them in human history. It's a little like being the least bad-smelling turd in the toilet, but still not bad by comparison.

[Reeve]

My point is quoted here


You guys build yourselves as the "world's benefactors" with such great pathos, and most of you eat it up like chips. The US deserves big respect for it's machinations, but my issue is with people being propagandized to think there are noble intentions here and the display of hypocricy. Driving the enemies towards an impasse and then being oh so shocked that he acts accordingly while having this hypocritical moral highground backed by media and the masses ( the media that freely looks the other way when you tell them to) is what truly disgusts me.


would you prefer if I said "moderate imperialism" ?

I'd prefer the term "hegemony." It accurately describes the situation with far less incorrect assumption and historical baggage attached.

[Gheld]

A free Canada is proof we're not Imperial.

Or perhaps the fact that Canada has been ideologically friendly towards Russia since the late 1960s and that would allow Russia to vilify the United States, form a strategic Alliance, and fly their aircraft to glory right over the arctic circle.

And Russia has been doing a lot of diplomatic work in South America. The kind of diplomatic work that leads to Russian military assets being stationed there; including nuclear bombers.

So the potential gains of annexing Canada outweigh the potential losses (Such as your entire country in World War 3).

EDIT: Also the majority of Canada's surface area is untamed wilderness, to which pissed off Canadians might retreat to and form Guerrilla groups (because Canada has lots of privately owned firearms too) and we all know how awesome the US has been at Guerrilla warfare historically...

[Malachi256]

Look out, Hubcap. You made Canada mad.

[Gheld]

Look out, Hubcap. You made Canada mad.

No, he just spouted ignorant "THE US IS SO AWESOME" shit.

When the fact is, the political, military, and economic relevance of the United States has been hemorrhaging at an alarming rate since other major global players have started to realize they've spread themselves much too thin.

[hydrium]

The question will always remain, if not us...who then?

Whenever we leave a giant vacuum always exists with no one stepping up to the plate.

[GG you got me]

[Independent voter]

Look out, Hubcap. You made Canada mad.

Won't be the first time.

[Hallidyne]

Canada is one of the USAs greatest, oldest, and strongest allies. It would do irrevocable harm to both countries, and the world economy, if either were ever at odds with one another. The same goes for any country being at odds with the US, because pissing us off is not different from economical suicide. The idiots in Washington don't realize it, but restricting trade between countries makes both countries worse in the long run.

[Deleted]

The same goes for any country being at odds with the US, because pissing us off is not different from economical suicide. The idiots in Washington don't realize it, but restricting trade between countries makes both countries worse in the long run.

Which begs the question: Why are US sanctions never the target of human rights activists? Because it's never about human rights in the first place.

[rayden54]

I would like to return to isolationism. It served our country well in the past.

Not really.