[quote]. Is the American the first benevolent superpower?..[/quote]
POSTED BY: Malbadinlatin
UPDATED: Monday, June 8, 2026 22:46
VIEWED: 10787
PAGE 4 of 8
Quote:What I said is more or less this. I don't think recognising that the idea of America as World Police is anything more than positive spin on America looking out for Americas interests is overly hard. I'm not attacking American's for looking out for their own interests, but the idea that they're somehow better because they're doing what every other empire has done within the political framework of today where a classical empire literally couldn't arise is somewhat tiresome.
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I think you're being a little harsh on the Americans. Viewed critically any Empire exists primarily for the benefit of the Imperial power, after all they are putting up the "blood and treasure" to make the Empire happen, hard to imagine them doing that with no benefit for themselves.
Quote:How were the southern states added to pre-civil war America? What were the troops invading Canada doing in 1812, going on holiday? America has used military power to expand her territory, the fact that it is more aligned to using proxies and puppet states than previous powers is more a sign of the times and a requirement for plausible deniability (in fact I think the term was coined by the CIA) than anything else.
1) America was not interested in occupying land and while you could argue that in place of military occupation you had cultural imperialism, merchantile imperialism and the formation of pro-American governments there were few if any "boots on the ground" occupying territory.
Quote:Just another example of what Empires do. The British Empire did the same thing in its own idiom.
3) Cultural imperialism. America exports a rightous image of itself abroard via movies and TV. If you see James T Kirk saving the world on TV every day you tend to have a preconception that Americans are brave and righteous. It could be that none Romans in the Roman Empire saw citizens the same way, but I doubt it was that pervasive.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thank you, it’s always good when a post is appreciated.
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Finn, as always an interesting and informative post. Are you sure you're on the right forum?
And I do believe that US interests do coincide with a better world, as I imagine do the interest of Britain and France and most other Western democracies. Contrary to the anti-American perspective the US is not generally callous and uncaring of world conditions. But no country’s foreign policies are altruistic. All countries place as their first priority their own national interests, but the beauty of the US and other Western democracies is that the philosophies that guide them, capitalism and liberal democracy, demand international cooperation and stability to be successful. A capitalist liberal democracy will generally seek a more peaceful, successful and stable world beyond its borders because these conditions are in their national interest and it is this that has helped to reshape the modern world. But it is naive to assume that the US can exist without the aide of certain dictatorial regimes. There are only a handful of liberal democracies in the world older then fifty years, and while in many ways the West is more successful then rest of the world, it still must pick its battles.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I had stuff to say, but it looks like you guys and gals pretty much summed it all up.
Simon didn't believe there were reavers either.
All the more reason why I believe that Firefly was sabotaged and destined to fail before it was even shown.
No matter how much we argue in here I love all you guys. I think it's great that we still live in a world where we can post the stuff we do and we don't disappear in the middle of the night or have freak "accidents". We may not all see eye to eye, but I do believe we help each other grow.... at the very least, this is a great outlet for the looser cannons among us (me) who have very little release for their frustrations elsewhere.
The only thing that I read that I thought was a pretty asinine comment was about making way for the Chinese and that they're "good fellows". I'm thinking that this was compeltely in jest though so I'll reserve my thoughts on that. Then again the thought of "Empress Hillary" is probably even scarier than 2 billion Chinese running the show.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"And I do believe that US interests do coincide with a better world"
US interests have been superceded by corporate ones.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
US interests have been superceded by corporate ones.
I gotta laugh so I don't cry Rue..... how true, how true.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't think the Chinese will be any better or worse than America, at least externally if not to their own citizenry.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
The only thing that I read that I thought was a pretty asinine comment was about making way for the Chinese and that they're "good fellows". I'm thinking that this was compeltely in jest though so I'll reserve my thoughts on that. Then again the thought of "Empress Hillary" is probably even scarier than 2 billion Chinese running the show.
China pretty much owns America economically as it is, a substantial amount of America's national debt is to the Chinese. In other words the Chinese could cripple America tomorrow by presenting a bill, but as Finn says a stable world is in Americas best interests, as it is with the Chinese. They're making a fortune off of a relatively stable world, and crippling America's economy could only damage that.
The point is that the Chinese aren't going to go on a murderous expansionist kick just because they surpass the United States as #1 super power, it wouldn't be in their best interests, and with the Chinese general isolationist attitude I think they'd probably be even less likely to put troops on to foreign soil.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:A good take, Finn, and one I would generally agree with, yet not across the board. Under Bush and Cheney, we attacked a country under the mistaken or deliberately falsified impression that it had something to do with 911, and that had useable WMD's.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
A capitalist liberal democracy will generally seek a more peaceful, successful and stable world beyond its borders because these conditions are in their national interest and it is this that has helped to reshape the modern world. But it is naive to assume that the US can exist without the aide of certain dictatorial regimes. There are only a handful of liberal democracies in the world older then fifty years, and while in many ways the West is more successful then rest of the world, it still must pick its battles.
Now the same language is being used in regards to Iran.
This is the domino theory in reverse Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The point is that the Chinese aren't going to go on a murderous expansionist kick just because they surpass the United States as #1 super power, it wouldn't be in their best interests, and with the Chinese general isolationist attitude I think they'd probably be even less likely to put troops on to foreign soil.
Well said! I spent a month in China back in 1986 when I was in college. The main concern of the chinese since WWII has been feeding it's people. When I was there everybody wore those blue Mao Tse Tung suits, rode bicycles only, and still loved Richard Nixon more than R. Now they have high rises, cars, business suits, and cell phones. Ahhhh progress![b/]
"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think you’re confusing expansionism with a police action. Neither the wars in Iraq nor Afghanistan are wars being fought because the US wants to take something from these countries, but rather as a means of enforcement against perceived threats. Both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are fought in response to 9/ll and the international community’s failure to police these two rogue state. You can agree or disagree with the tactics, but there is a difference between wars of aggression, like Saddam’s war against Iran or Kuwait, and police actions like the UN or US/UK led wars against Iraq in 1991 and 2003.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
A good take, Finn, and one I would generally agree with, yet not across the board. Under Bush and Cheney, we attacked a country under the mistaken or deliberately falsified impression that it had something to do with 911, and that had useable WMD's.
Now the same language is being used in regards to Iran.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Correct as far as Afganistan.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think you’re confusing expansionism with a police action. Neither the wars in Iraq nor Afghanistan are wars being fought because the US wants to take something from these countries, but rather as a means of enforcement against perceived threats.
But the Iraq War was started to create a U.S. friendly nation, safe ground for a large, permanent base, and give us a better handle on what's going on in the middle east. But they couldn't just exactly SAY that, hence the terrorist-connection and WMD's.
I suppose you might also say that the (planned) end result will make us safer from terrorism in the long run...but I doubt it.
Doubting Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME