Soren wrote on Apr 10^th, 2012 at 2:09pm:


Well the British learnt their lesson about being too open in your dominance of others, it just leads the locals to become rebellious. Better to pull the strings from the shadows, and let them think they have some measure of "independence". Clearly the U.S inherited this knowledge from its predecessor and founder.

I do not think it is useful to conflate national interests with imperial ambitions.

The US i certainly a mighty big country economically and militarily and culturally. As a consequence, it has unusually large spheres of interests. Conducting business without undue hindrance is one of its national interests. That requires ... ere... peacekeping military bases. There is a certain amount of irony in that, of course, but the solid point remains: the US military bases are not dotted around th globe to facilitate territorial expansion but to ensure that there is peace in which the business of conducting business can be pursued.

If you are a country also interested in the peaceful pursuit of business, without monsteruing your own people, you are, by definition, a friend of America. You want to hinder business and/or monster your own people or your neighbours -you are in America's cross-hairs. But I do not think that this is the same as imperial ambition. What would be the point of being the most powerful country if you had to let every little pissant country kick sand in your face?

Soren wrote on Apr 11^th, 2012 at 9:31am:



Except, of course, when peace is not in the best interest of business.

The US doesn't need to conquer anybody in the way that past empires have. They've played it smart enough that they can now take what they want or need without the need to be obviously in control.

Take. Take is the word I want.

Quote:


Surely you don't mean that he wanted to control the resources of the country he was given to run? Yes, hanging was too good for him, but certainly not for that reason.


Quote:


But the Business that matters will be thriving from the war time boost. All that counts really, isn't it?

If someone steals your Naughtiest Girl collection and leaves a $5 note on the bookshelf as they leave, is that buying or taking?

Quote:



It doesn't reflect on the Afghanis one way or another.

Soren wrote on Apr 11^th, 2012 at 9:31am:

Imperial ambition is part of the national interest for rich and powerful nations. Even China, which so far has largely avoided the traps of imperialism, will I believe, ultimately succumb inevitably to an overt form of imperialism as foreign issues become increasingly more influential over domestic ones. Chinese hysteria over who speaks to the Dalai Lama indicates that China would easily be tempted to use imperialistic means to ensure Sino supremacy in its perceived 'sphere of influence' It is highly probable in the near future that China will openly dictate to Australia who we may trade with and what we may sell.

Like all foreign policy, US foreign policy is founded, as it must be, on national self-interest, which, in the case of the US, is imbued with the instruments of empire (being among other things the military and the arms industry).

Zimbabwe is an example of a nation that certainly does not conform to American constitutional ideals yet has not prompted the US to invade... The determining factor for the US is whether or not the 'offending' nation threatens (or is perceived to threaten) the US economy or security.

However, no empire dismantles itself voluntarily nor would it be possible to do so and the US is no exception.

The idea that the US does not have an empire in the classic sense works very well as internal propaganda, but is treated with bemused derision within former imperial nations like Britain and Turkey.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 11^th, 2012 at 11:34am:

Its always bitter when you taste your own medicine