Regarding the reason America is expansionistic: My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (—its will to power) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ("union") with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on. – trans. Walter Kaufmann, The Will to Power, §636 I strongly believe this covers the whole reason.
"Seize power and try to manipulate people, you will not succeed. People have their own way and cannot be manipulated. What you attempt to seize, you destroy; what you attempt to grab, you lose." Lao-Tze. This guy had it covered about 3000 years ago, but Bush still doesn´t get it.
Strongest countries on earth always try to stamp their authority everywhere else in the name of "protecting interests". They all fail eventually though. History has proven it. British tried it and failed. Spanish tried it and failed. The Mongols tried it and failed. The Arabs (Abbasids and Umayyads) tried it and failed. The Romans tried it and failed. The Persians tried it and failed. Get the drift? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It will only be so long before the US overextends itself and fails too. I place my money on the Chinese, Indians, or (by some stroke of luck) a united EU being the next big kahuna who will try and fail.
But American is an empire. It is the most efficient one that has ever existed. Not only has it done away with the expense of providing all the costly trappings that an emperor normally demands (palaces, jewels, court of well paid "yes men", etc.) but it collects wealth from its empire far more efficiently than ever before in history. This collecting wealth (without trading for it) from your subjects it the every essence of being an empire. Everything else can be omitted, but not this. For example, the Romans had to send armies and tax collectors to all parts of their empire, but the US only sends small green pieces of paper and get all sorts of good in exchange for them. It has collected more than trillion dollars worth of goods and services from China alone for the paper printed by US Mint! At best, the Romans could barely "brake even" and eventually the cost of their armies and tax collectors exceeded the worth of what they collected.
Perhaps you should check the definition of "empire", Billy. You should also do some thinking about the differences between American free enterprise and American government. What you see as "empire" seems more likely to be private American citizens doing business in other nations, freely and with the consent of that nation's government. There's a big difference between private businesses and a nation's goverment. Baron Max
I stated what was the only thing common to all empires. (Namely the extraction of tribute from their empire.) What else would you require of a empire? If anything else applies to all, I would like you to tell me what there is that ALL commonly recognized empires have had in common.
Huh? So the government of the USA gathers tribute from other nations/areas of the world? Like what? How? I understand a private enterprise gaining capital by shrewd dealings with other nations' companies, but ...I don't think that's the same as "tribute", do you??? Control of the people and the land ...being the presiding government of that area/land. Proclaiming the people of that land as citizens and taxpayers. Setting up laws and regulations, courts and police. Among other such things. Baron Max
I told you already. Mint prints paper and gets goods and services for it - more than a trillion from China alone as I noted already. Also my concept of an "empire" is not limited to governments. For example Microsoft, if it did not do any thing productive more (some Mac Users think it never didPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) yet extracted wealth from all over the world for noting in exchange, could be considered an "empire." John D Rockefeller certainly built an empire called "standard oil" which lasted until US government broke it up. He became very wealthy from the tributes he collected, but not as much as he might if he just openly robbed to population. The Roman empire did little or none of this in most parts of its empire. (They occasionally went in and collected taxes - why Christ was born in Bethleham, etc. but it was not a regular thing.) They certainly did not make the local laws. If they did the laws of their empire would not have varied so much from one region to another. Many would like to have been citizens of Rome, but few were. etc. I asked you to tell one thing (in addition to my "collect tribute") that was Common to ALL empires in history. You have failed miserably to do so. Try again.
In many cases, yes. You do know what occurs sometimes in the case of extreme corporatism supported by the government, right? Clue: It happened in Germany in the 1930s.
"extracted"? It's not extracted, it's exchanged ...a free and willing exchange on the part of both parties. And more to the point, it's not a government, so calling it an "empire" is just misusing the word ...or worse, you're making up your own definitions of the word. You're just misusing the word. You're using "empire" in a sensationalist way, not as a nation or country forming an empire. The commonly accepted definition of the word is applicable ONLY to governments or nations, not individuals or private companies!! If we use your definition, Billy, then I have formed an empire, too. And I daresay, millions, perhaps billions, of other private individuals have done so. And you, on the other hand, have given such a broad, all-encompassing definition that I, myself, have formed an empire! And so have millions of others in the world. Baron Max
Hmm, I don't know as I'd go along with that. For one thing, I just don't think that it's an "empire" in the true sense of the word. Empire refers to governments, and/or nations. In a sensationalist newspaper, one might use the term "empire" for big companies for sensationalims, but it's not an empire. I would also caution you about the idea of "supported by the government". Like, what does that mean? How supported? When? Where? Etc? The idea of support lends itself well to sensationalism, but is it factual? Is it actual, or is it just moral support? Baron Max
Through protectionist laws, "free" trade regulations, "aid" that demands US corporations be a part of the package and control of nontrading governments through covert practices.
Okay. So what? What are you saying, Sam? That only the US does that, but no other nation on Earth does that or similar things? Baron Max
that's a different subject altogether, Sam. If yuou want to start another "Hate America" thread, feel free to do so, but this isn't the place for such bullshit. Baron Max
Mexico. They're buying or stealing American guns and smuggling them back into Mexico for big profit. So, why "just in recent times"? Besides, what's all the fuss? Afterall, elections have consequences. The elected get to rule according to their previously stated preferences. Nature has elected the U.S. to be current world leader. Figure out how to get Nature to vote someone else leader that doesn't involve emulating all or any one of what anti-Americans claim are America's crimes against humanity. I guess there's ire to be felt by those whose opinions Nature has ignored. How unfairly unnatural is that? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thats not an example of an invasion; but its interesting you should think it is. As for leadership, ask the people of Iraq what they feel about it.
