# The Decline and Fall of the American Empire?



## Edward Campbell (13 Aug 2005)

Here, from today's _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting Comment from John Crispo who was a well know _public intellectual_ (TV 'talking head' if you like) and later Dean of the Rotman School of Business at the University of Toronto.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050812.wxcocrispo13/BNStory/specialComment/  


> Uncle Sam's puzzling decline
> 
> By JOHN CRISPO
> 
> ...



A couple of important points (important to me, anyhow):

"¢	Crispo is ruminating with an appropriate _long_ view, his _Decline and Fall_ must be the work of decades;

"¢	Historically, _all_ the mighty (countries, empires, dynasties) fell, without fail.  This was the same for Egypt and Babylon, the Qin and the Romans, the Mongols and Moguls and the British, too.  I see no sign of a divine hand in any of the empires of history and I suspect, therefore, that none will prop up America, either; and

"¢	Crispo offers no _solutions_,

I have no solutions for America's inevitable _Decline and Fall_ but I do have some thoughts on what Canada should do to protect and promote its vital interests, before during and after the _process_.

We must do whatever we can to:

1.	Slow the rate of American decline; and, simultaneously

2.	Reduce our _exposure_.

How can we do this?

First: we must help America to _retain_ its pre-eminent _place_ and, later to _share_ that _place_ with China.  There are two things we can do:

"¢	Help America to build and maintain a _loose but loyal_ coalition of like-minded, law abiding, constitutional democracies, beginning with the _Anglosphere_: Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore and the United States.  I need to emphasize that this cannot and should not be a formal alliance which cements the US leadership role.  Very often highly formal multi-national constructs like the UN and NATO are crippled or, at least, hobbled by their formal structures.  That lack of formality does not mean that the _alliance_ is any less real or strong.  The strength of the loose alliance will be based upon real, current self interest - and that always trumps fancy formal declarations; and

"¢	Start, now, to negotiate a comprehensive free trade arrangement with China - an arrangement which permits the free flow of goods, services, capital and jobs.

There are things America can, and I think will do for itself:

"¢	Shore up its existing alliances - the Bush administration's foreign policy has been _helter-skelter_ to say the least.  It is not clear, to me, that this administration - despite the presence of a large number of real, certified intellectual _heavy weights_ - has a coherent world view.  My personal opinion is that President Bush has a _'Gott mit uns'_ world view (*and no, I'm not making any comparison with any German person or any German administration*) which does not serve him, or America well.  I repeat: that's my personal opinion.  America is the pre-eminent global power - the _hyper-power_ for the moment, but it does not have the capacity to do everything, especially not at once, and not even if none of the major powers object.  America needs friends and allies and I'm afraid that Romania is not a good replacement for Canada and El Salvador's support does not counterbalance France's opposition.  Coalitions of the willing are not effective substitutes for formal alliances, based on shared principles;

"¢	Obey the rules to which it agreed - not only with Canada in NAFTA, but with all of its traditional friends in a whole host of fields.  The WTO is chock-a-block full of actions which _friends_ are bringing, and winning, against America because this American administration appears to have decided that _manifest destiny_ exists (it never did, it doesn't now, it never will).  This one act will do as much as anything else to smooth the way for shoring up alliances.  The various and sundry Pew opinion surveys are consistent - most of the world, including most of the people who *are* America's friends consider the United States an ill informed global bully, a caricature of the classic school-yard bully.  True or not, it is a devastating _opinion_.  More and more it appears that, in multilateral matters, the elder Mrs. Bush is saying, "Oh, there's my boy George W.  Look!  He's the only one in step."

"¢	Slow public spending - the American deficit does matter.  It cannot be self sustained.  China, not Wall Street or the Fed, is setting interest rates, for now.  China can be trusted to protect and promote its self interests and they are not coincident with America's; and

"¢	Restore America to a top rank position in education and R&D - I agree with Crispo that these are the really important _leading indicators_ of American decline.

 The last two apply, in spades, to Canada.  Our public spending has been out of control for 35 years.  It must be reigned in.  Canadians cannot have their cake and eat it too, not for much longer.  That does not mean that we cannot have universal health care: France does and it spends only 2/3 of what Canada does on health care.  (Those who follow my ramblings in army.ca will know that I am no fan of France or, especially, its governments but in some things the French are _better_ than us: health care is one of those things.)  It means that we spend prudently, and wisely, for the greatest 'good' (which is different from 'benefit') for the greatest number.

Our public education system is a mess; it, not just smuggled guns, is what we have an epidemic of _gunplay_ in some Toronto neighbourhoods.  The public education system - Kindergarten to graduate school - has failed Canada and Canadians, especially young black men in Canada.

Anyway: something to chew over.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Aug 2005)

Many of these observations are far too true, and I suspect most of it can be traced back to the failure of the public school system since the 1960s. several generations have been raised to adulthood without any holistic view of how things work, hence the short term expediency of foreign and economic policy in both Canada and the US.

While there is some recognition about looming problems, realistic solutions such as private social security accounts in the US or privatizing Canadian healthcare are fought tooth and nail by people interested or benefiting from the current status quo, without reference to future developments or trends. The general public does not have the ability to understand the current problems; and here in Canada (and to a lesser extent the US) they are easily sucked into the paradigm of "More Government programs/spending" as the solution to various problems, simply compounding the underlying economic problems.

I wonder what might happen if the fear mongering about trade of currency deficits unleashes a panic stricken buy or sell off of assets. The last great depression was lengthened and deepened by the "New Deal", as constantly shifting regulation and confiscatory taxes stifled capital formation and job creation, I don't think this crop of politicians know enough to take their hands of the wheel of the economy. If we get away from fear mongering, most of these capital overhangs will correct themselves in time (Chinese investors will not want to loose the value of their investments after all). On the other hand, China does not seem interested in "free trade" with the United States or minor players like Canada. She is certainly interested in gaining access to our resources, though.

Edward's observations about the need for the Anglosphere to pick up the slack from failed institutions like the UN or time expired ones like NATO are quite correct. The only sad note is the "New Anglosphere" will probably be England, Australia and India, since Canada is choosing to sit out on the world stage, New Zealand seems to have done a "Canada" in the southern hemisphere and the other "Anglo" nations like the Carribean islands have very little resources or clout to add.

America does have one thing that previous Empires have lacked; a flexible social fabric. So long as people of true ability can rise to the tops of their chosen professions (people as varied as Andrew Grove or Dr Condolezza Rice), then there is still hope of new and unusual solutions being created and implemented. Nothing is forever, but I suspect America can last longer than most.


----------



## LF(CMO) (14 Aug 2005)

"America does have one thing that previous Empires have lacked; a flexible social fabric. So long as people of true ability can rise to the tops of their chosen professions (people as varied as Andrew Grove or Dr Condolezza Rice), then there is still hope of new and unusual solutions being created and implemented. Nothing is forever, but I suspect America can last longer than most."

 Thanks for the above.  Dr. Rice will be 'on the ticket' in the next election as the Pres or as the Vice with John McCain.  That's why the US of A is a long way from dead yet!!


----------



## Monsoon (19 Aug 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> well far be it from me to disagree with you on any of your points, the US has always made sure that countries had access to its markets, contrary to CDN or any other talking heads.  If it wasn't so free with trade do you think there would be such a large trade defecit?


That's an interesting take on things.  Have you heard about the softwood lumber dispute?



> I would like to add is that it is rather telling since 40% of another country's population (Mexico) would move to the US, I wonder if the same percentage would move to China?


Probably not.  But I expect that that has more to do with proximity and language similarity than with any manifest destiny.



> One final thing....there is a commodity than no other "EMPIRE" ever had and that is freedom.....


The British Empire was so free that it granted independence to all its overseas holdings.



> besides most of us in the US don't want to be the World's policemen....we want everyone to carry there own weight!


...in fulfilling the US' wishes.  How generous.

And before anyone accuses me of being anti-American, I'm not.  But I think a little more honesty from our friends to the south about why they pursue the foreign policy they do would be in order.


----------



## Jascar (19 Aug 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Probably not.   But I expect that that has more to do with proximity and language similarity than with any manifest destiny.



Proximity and language barriers are not the issues here. I suspect most Mexicans would rather move to the US where there are labour laws, a minimum wage, and a high standard of living. Or these Mexicans could go to China and work as virtual slaves in a factory where they'll likely be stuck for most of their lives, barely earning enough to feed themselves. I do believe that's what they're trying to escape in Mexico. This was a minor point in your argument but come on, who are you kidding trying to convince us that people actually want to emigrate to China?


----------



## Monsoon (19 Aug 2005)

Jascar said:
			
		

> Proximity and language barriers are not the issues here. I suspect most Mexicans would rather move to the US where there are labour laws, a minimum wage, and a high standard of living. Or these Mexicans could go to China and work as virtual slaves in a factory where they'll likely be stuck for most of their lives, barely earning enough to feed themselves. I do believe that's what they're trying to escape in Mexico. This was a minor point in your argument but come on, who are you kidding trying to convince us that people actually want to emigrate to China?


I didn't mention China in my argument for a reason.  My point was that proximity and language play a greater role than an abstract notion of "freedom" or "greatness".  Obviously prosperity and a decent standard of living plays the largest part, but I think you would find that if Canada had a large Spanish-speaking population and were situated next to the Mexican border instead of the US, 40% of Mexicans would want to move to Canada.  The point is that there's nothing particularly special about the US in that regard, beyond language and proximity.


----------



## 48Highlander (19 Aug 2005)

Guatemala and Belize are just as close, and have a higher percentage of Spanish speaking individuals.  I don't see 40% of mexicans wanting to move there though....ESPECIALLY prefering to move there instead of to the US.  I don't get how you can claim that location and language are the main factors.  Individual freedoms and the economic situation are much more important.


----------



## Jascar (19 Aug 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> The point is that there's nothing particularly special about the US in that regard, beyond language and proximity.


Why are thousands of Mexicans trying to sneak into the US and not the other way around? Do you think 40% of Americans would move to Mexico? Surely the USA must have something special to offer other than language and proximity.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Aug 2005)

> the repercussions for countries like China, Japan and Canada, which depend so much on the U.S. market would be telling


his

This is the reason that I don't think the Yanks are going to shuffling off the scene any time soon.  Too many countries, and corporations, and people, and politicians (no they are not a subset of people) have got a vested interest in keeping them afloat.  There is no current alternative to the Dollar.  The Euro was a run at it but it is looking kind of wobbly these days as well.  The Brits are planning on issuing new coins for the first time since 1971 - if they were expecting to join the Euro sometime soon its unlikely they would be doing that.

Many countries could likely take down the international monetary system but in the absence of an equally strong competitor the outcome is likely to be closer to anarchy than change of regime.  Countries like India, China, Russia, the US and even Canada would likely be more susceptible to fragmentation.

While Osama may like that outcome, and even work towards it, he not only has to fight the US but all other countries with something to lose.

It is kind of the principle if you owe the bank 100,000 dollars the bank owns you.  If you owe the bank 100,000,000 dollars you own the bank.  (Inflation has taken its toll - I first heard that aphorism as 1000 and 1,000,000)

Now in 50 to 100 years, maybe even 25, the world may look different but people have been predicting the demise of the Yanks ever since they played "The World Turned Upside Down" at Yorktown.

Still waiting.


----------



## Monsoon (20 Aug 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Guatemala and Belize are just as close, and have a higher percentage of Spanish speaking individuals.  I don't see 40% of mexicans wanting to move there though....ESPECIALLY prefering to move there instead of to the US.  I don't get how you can claim that location and language are the main factors.  Individual freedoms and the economic situation are much more important.


Sigh.



> Why are thousands of Mexicans trying to sneak into the US and not the other way around? Do you think 40% of Americans would move to Mexico? Surely the USA must have something special to offer other than language and proximity.


I see the disingenuity crowd is out in force tonight.

Yes.  As I mentioned before, the major factor is prosperity and quality of life.  Neither of these qualities, you'll agree, is unique to the US in any way.  What is unique to the US is proximity and language, in addition to prosperity and quality of life.  While Guatemala or Belize enjoy close proximity to Mexico, they lack prosperity and quality of life.  While Canada and Great Britain enjoy prosperity and quality of life, they lack proximity and language.  That is why 40% of Mexicans would choose to live in the US, according to the uncited statistic mentioned above.

Or does anybody want to insist that it's just a matter of inherent greatness?


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Aug 2005)

:

So, a good economy, high quality of life, a multiculutural population, and conviniet placement do not equal "inherent greatness" eh? 

I'm really confused about what you're trying to prove....


----------



## MTAB (20 Aug 2005)

I think EMPIRE is a difficult thing to define these days with the global contributions of all countries.  However (with tongue firmly planted in cheek) l'll take a stab at it.

Empires:

All roads lead to....
The sun will never set on the....
Every where the sun rises will be......
Damned if you do, damned if you don't......

As history has shown, nothing lasts forever

V/R
MTAB


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Aug 2005)

The United States is not an empire. Part of the reason for the failure of other empire's was their inability to fund their military to maintain control of their far flung colonies. In an empire you have colonies that are rich and others that are poor. The rich colonies subsidize the poor ones.

The US economy is the strongest economy in the world. Job growth is the best of any industrialized world. Taxation is conducive to investment and job growth. The trade deficit isnt important. The democrats decried Bush's tax cuts. Yet those tax cuts have fueled the rebound of the economy. We have a true free market economy and as long as those policies are in force the US will enjoy a very strong economy. But one thing I can guarantee, if the US economy collapses so will the world economy as we are so intertwined. Remember the great depression was world wide.


----------



## Monsoon (20 Aug 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> So, a good economy, high quality of life, a multiculutural population, and conviniet placement do not equal "inherent greatness" eh?
> I'm really confused about what you're trying to prove....


The original post I was responding to suggested that 40% of Mexicans want to move to the US because of "freedom".  I was observing that there are many countries in the world with as much (or even more) freedom than that enjoyed by a Mexican in the US.  The specific reasons that Mexicans want to move to the US have to do with the Mexican domestic economy as compared to the US economy, and the fact that that better economy is immediately next door.

This point is pretty well done to death (and I made a number of other points that I guess no one disagrees with) so I'm going to stop making it now.


----------



## Mojo Magnum (20 Aug 2005)

While I hold no degree in economics or global politics, 

I did sleep at a best Western last night, 

I suspect things are far more fragile on the world stage than any of us would like to think. 

If the United States continues down the road of conisdering "illegal military action" as a viable diplomatic tool, labeling entire nations as "Evil", and insisting on forcing their American version of freedom on anyone they choose,


We may find that little things like China and Russia performing military training operations together is more relevant than any of us would like.


or,

maybe that was a travel lodge I stayed at....


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Aug 2005)

> If the United States continues down the road of conisdering "illegal military action" as a viable diplomatic tool, labeling entire nations as "Evil", and insisting on forcing their American version of freedom on anyone they choose,



The invasion of Iraq WAS NOT illegal. This is a lie spread by the anti war crowd. Second, 60% of the population was under the heel of the Sunni's who comprised 20% of the population. Now the Sunni's are fighting to prevent majority rule.


----------



## Mojo Magnum (20 Aug 2005)

Dude,

The United States and it's coalition did not obtain approval from the United Nations Security Counsel for the invasion of Iraq.

It was illegal.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Aug 2005)

Dude, 

This has been discussed in depth before, and we've blown that statement out of the water.   Since when does the United Nations decide what is legal and what is not?   If we go by your measurement, Kosovo was illegal and Canada violated international law by participating in the bombing of Belgrade.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Aug 2005)

Tomahawk:

While I agree that the invasion of Iraq was not illegal, in fact it was not just not illegal it was justifiable on a whole bunch of levels ranging from humanitarian grounds to geopolitical and strategic grounds, I disagree that America is not an Empire.  America is an empire.  But before you get your hackles too high Canada too is an empire.  

Empires are just governments that control a variety of geographically dispersed communities.  The government maintains order, enables commerce and, as you suggested, redistributes wealth.  That was true of the Brits, the Romans and the Egyptians.  It also describes the relation between Canada West, Canada Center, Canada de l'est and Ottawa, between Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto and the Hinterland.  I think it also describes the relationship amongst New York, Los Angeles and Portland, Rochester, Modesto and Yakima, red and blue.

The US and Canada are empires.  Canada, like Russia, is a contiguous empire.  It has no dispersed colonies.  America is a primarily contiguous empire but it has some dispersed colonies. Some of those colonies are places like Guam and Hawaii and Puerto Rico that are various attached to the body.  In other instances there are cities that are dependent on the empire for their livelihood. Some embrace the fact an would like to become part of the empire, some wish to keep their distance and some resent their dependence.  Some parts of the contiguous empire resent their dependence.

Empires break up when more people, more colonies resent the empire than benefit from it and when they no longer see themselves represented in the governing structure.

If America faces a threat it is likely the same threat that Canada faces - the threat of dissolution.  And if that happened it would likely come as great a shock, and surprise, to the Chinese, Russians and Indians as it would to those in Europe and Canada that are constantly harping about America's faults.


----------



## Mojo Magnum (20 Aug 2005)

but guys,

what about international law?


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Aug 2005)

But Mojo

What international law?  Where's the international police force?


----------



## paracowboy (20 Aug 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Where's the international police force?


mostly places like Ft. Benning, Aldershot, Edmonton Garrison, etc.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (20 Aug 2005)

I suggest you ALL Download the Guide to Strategy by the US ARMY War College 

http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps11754/00354.pdf

- read the first 40 pages and whats legal or illegal is shown as what`s right at the time for the individual country or groups of countries

Some extracts - its easy to read as its aimed at the top echelons of the US Military

eg: CHAPTER 3: ETH I CAL IS SUES IN WAR: AN OVER VIEW-
MAR TIN L. COOK.
Martin Cook's essay provides background on the limits, constraints, and criteria that have evolved regarding the use of violence by states and societies. Chapter 3 includes a review of just war thinking and the general history of Western legal and ethical thought. Cook notes the open questions regarding cultural diversity, especially in what many call the age of globalization. How Western thought converges and diverges from other cultural and ethical traditions, customs and laws should be an important area for seminar discussions and future research. This Chapter includes the just war framework and criteria, and highlights the importance of developing a strategist's understanding

In the modern world, a large body of ethical and legal thought attempts to limit, constrain and to establish criteria that sanction the use of violence in the name of the state and society. Through the mechanisms of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the Charter of the United Nations, military manuals such as the U.S. Army's "Law of Land Warfare," and similar documents, modern governments and militaries attempt to distinguish "just war" and just conduct in war from other types of killing of human beings. Morally conscientious military personnel need to understand and frame their actions in moral terms so as to maintain moral integrity in the midst of the actions and stress of combat. They do so in order to explain to
themselves and others how the killing of human beings they do is distinguishable from the criminal act of murder.

The public declaration requirement has both a moral purpose and (in the American context) a legal one. The legal one refers to the issue we were just discussing: the role of Congress in declaring war. As we all know, few twentieth-century military conflicts in American history have been authorized by a formal Congressional declaration of war. While this is an important and unresolved Constitutional issue for the United States, it is not the moral point of the requirement.

The moral point is perhaps better captured as a requirement for delivery of an ultimatum before initiation of hostilities. Recall that the moral concern of just war is to make recourse to armed conflict as infrequent as possible. The requirement of a declaration or ultimatum gives a potential adversary formal notice that the issue at hand is judged serious enough to warrant the use of military force and that the nation is prepared to do so unless that issue is successfully resolved peacefully immediately.

But don`t take my word for it - read the first 40 pages and a lot becomes clear on how the deployments are managed from the top end of policy perspective.

I am currently sifting through this doc and will post the notes when they are done.

The US has made its case in spades - stop being an idiot or we will act. Certain targets have refused to listen or moderate their behaviour. At the same time certain neighbours of these idiots do not have the will or the means to moderate their neighbours behaviour.


----------



## paracowboy (20 Aug 2005)

no different than is taught on the Law of Armed Conflict Crse.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (20 Aug 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> no different than is taught on the Law of Armed Conflict Crse.



Maybe so - from what I posted but the Strategy paper ends up planning WW3 - which is beyond most of our experience - it just shows you the hoops to jump through if you want to start an action - the GENERAL CASE is where one side has invaded another - it says the problems with the world community come in when this is not the case - and then the big players take action.

Bear in mind this is aimed at senior staff but the material is common as you say. 

The question for us all is where is the official dialogue. Was common in the pre 1989 fall of Berlin Wall era - now its just a deployment until someone gets hurt then the shrieking and hand wringing starts from the political side.

We're not about to get out of this any time soon --- see http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1152&slug=Army%20Chief%20Interview ---- but there is an election coming in USA and Canada within a year or two.

No public dialogue = trouble on the way in my view. SO skip ahead to page 203 and see stuff that relates to the Economic,  Diplomatic and Military side of the creation of national policy

A quote

"' we can no longer afford isolated or uncoordinated approaches among the domains of strategy-military,
diplomatic, economic, or informational-which often, as Gregory Foster has observed, "manifest themselves operationally as costly bureaucratic and institutional barriers to unity of thought and action."3 Churchill's genius was rooted in his understanding of this reality. Like a painter, he tells us, the strategist must have an "all-embracing view, which presents the beginning and the end, the whole and each part, as one instantaneous impression retentively and untiringly held in the mind.

Civilian leadership identifies the broad political objectives and acceptable levels of cost and risk. Military leadership is responsible for a military strategy to achieve political objectives. Reconciling the two requires a clear delineation of political constraints and an equally clear assessment of military objectives and centers of gravity that must be attacked to achieve both military and political objectives. If centers of gravity, the most vital military targets, lie beyond the political constraints imposed by the nation's leadership, military intervention is unlikely to succeed." ------

------ OSAMA maybe driving a garbage truck in Kandahar or be located BEYOND THE COST we are willing to pay AND RISK to get him (if he exists) --- I see it as an ends, ways and means relationship - ENDS West wants to shut down terror MEANS - Military - Diplomatic and Economic resources --- publicly we only see the Military and a thin slice of other govt depts  - Diplomatically we see __________ (fill in if you see it) and economically  (fill in if you see it). 

WAYS - some sort of a blended application of the three means.

Since we are in a coalition its unlikely we'll get more than part of an area of responsibility because of our limited means and the Diplomatic and Economic sides of the triangle are currently invisible.

I think the public should demand a debate on this.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Aug 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Empires are just governments that control a variety of geographically dispersed communities.  The government maintains order, enables commerce and, as you suggested, redistributes wealth.  That was true of the Brits, the Romans and the Egyptians.  It also describes the relation between Canada West, Canada Center, Canada de l'est and Ottawa, between Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto and the Hinterland.  I think it also describes the relationship amongst New York, Los Angeles and Portland, Rochester, Modesto and Yakima, red and blue.
> 
> The US and Canada are empires.



I'm going to disagree with that - "Empire" means much more than simple control through sovereignty.  There is something different between the control of the Federal government over my taxable income and the influence that the United States exerts militarily, economically, and politically on the international stage (just as, 2500 years ago, there was a difference between Athens and, say, Melos).  I'm sticking to my guns that America is indeed an Empire (along the lines of Ferguson, Kagan, and all those other writers I had to read in "Great Power Politics").


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Aug 2005)

Infanteer: I think you are arguing qualitative over substantive differences.

Just been re-reading Davies "The Isles".  In the 1500 and 1600's before Britain had established her overseas empire there were government documents referencing the "imperial" nature of the government's control over the various parts of England and Scotland.  (Can't find page just now of course ).

While I admit that language evolves and empire now has a particular and pejorative meaning it wasn't always so.

OED "supreme and extensive (political) dominion; (arch.) absolute control (_over_); (period of) government in which sovereign is called emperor; territory of an emperor:..."

If we accept there are no Emperors, therefore not Empires, then we are left with supreme and extensive, usually political domininion.  Only nation-states have supreme dominion therefore any nation-state can be characterized as an empire.

Cheers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2005)

I think we are entering another of those pernicious debates on nomenclature.

The Roman _republic_ was an _empire_, for heaven's sake; just as the US was, almost from its inception, and just as the American _republic_ remains.  It (the US) grew into a global empire in about 1898, after the Spanish-American War.  In many respects the American empire was like the British empire: it had direct colonies and corporate colonies (the Brits had the East India Company, the Americans had the United Fruit Company) and 'free trade' zones, too.

I would argue that the US empire reached its 'outer limits' in about 1945.  Then it settled on to a _plateau_, challenged, to some degree, by the USSR.  The world has changed, as has America, Europe and China have been reconstructed, mostly with American capital, and so, _relatively_ - but only relatively â â€œ America's power has appeared to wane, not because it has less but because almost everyone else (save Russia) has more â â€œ in some cases a lot more.  Power is more than just the military, it embraces trade and commerce, investment and culture, too.  America remains unsurpassed in all areas â â€œ for now.

I repeat: I see no signs of divine intervention in any empires, including America's; that being the case the American empire will decline, others will rise and supplant it; that will be the work of generations.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Aug 2005)

You're just shoe-horning the nation-state into the defintion of Empire.   I'm not gunning for the literal definition (dictionary definitions, as we've seen throughout these forums, tend to fall short), I'm looking at one that frames "Empires" properly within the socio-political context in which they arise.   Your defintion seems to fail because "geographic" falls short in properly explaining what sets "Empire" from the rest.   When we look to the history books 400 years from now, we won't be looking at a "Canadian Empire" or a "Kenyan Empire" rather we'll be reading about the British Empire and the dominance of the United States - there is a reason for this.

A useful context to start "framing" empire is to look at the reach.   To be considered "Empire", "global" reach is required - global in the sense that their policies, actions and culture have effects that are pervasive both within and outside of their domain.   The reach of Empire encompasses most of the (relevent) world known to the people of that time.   Indeed, the most durable empires are built around ideas.   Rome was an empire, first of the Mediterranean world and than of all Europe.   The British (the worlds first global empire) although painting much of the map red - but Britain was far more than just some trading house (Niall Ferguson's Empire does a good job of telling the story).   The American Empire is one based almost purely upon idea - its territory is largely confined to the sovereign territory of the USA, but its dominance of ideas (military doctrine, democracy, Bretton Woods, NATO, etc, etc) is all encompassing in today's international arena.

Many empires possessed their reach through purely physical (re: military) means.   The Mongols, Alexander and Nazi Germany come to mind.   They also tend to be short lived, as the _idea_ seems to possess much more endurance than the _sword_.

The essence of power and control (political dominion) at the local and regional level is essentially the same as that at an imperial level.   You have various people, tribes, clans, groups, and nationalities bickering, co-opting, and all out fighting over who's will sets the agenda.   These political arguments transcend moral, political, economic, social and military planes.   Most of the time, this is contained - we've managed to box that idea into the political term "sovereignty".   This is why you can have largely homogeneous Nation-States (Japan) or culturally fractured ones (like Spain); neither of which would be considered Empire.   

Indeed, "Empire" is an *interstate* concept, not an *intrastate* one.   It is when this essence of power and control goes "global" that the Imperial nature begins to become apparent.   The arguments within Canada's Parliament are local - the effect is not global or imperial.   However, one keeps attuned to the decisions coming out of Washington (just as one did 100 years ago to London or 2200 years ago to the Senate in Rome) because their reach is global and the consequences are directly or indirectly felt around the world (or at least, the world as those who experienced it knew it).


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Aug 2005)

Edward Campbell: 

You are correct, sir. It is a matter of semantics.  And as such it is a relatively minor matter.

Except in this regard.  As noted Empire has become a pejorative.  Those that use the word Empire seek to portray the Americans in a particular light.  Many of those that describe the world in terms of the Decline and Fall are looking forward to the end of this current balance of power.  They seem to seek to encourage others to work towards the decline and fall of the current structure.

I am in no such rush.  The period after the fall of the Roman Empire was not particularly pleasant and nor, I wager, has life been particularly pleasant for many after the fall of the British Empire.  I think you could probably find some in Sierra Leone and Rhodesia saying please come back, all's forgiven.

If anything I am in Niall Fergusson's camp and am looking for a return to Empire - just who will govern and how it will be governed is an open question.

Infanteer:  

What I am arguing is the nature of the polities that constitute a state.  I am back to those Colony Forming Units in the Petri dish that we discussed months ago.

The colonies are distinct.  Cities are distinct.   You know where the centre is.  You don't know where the edge is.  You don't know where the next colony or city begins.  This becomes more true with crowding.

Cities are definable by their centres.  Where their influence extends is less definable.  The State is a construct where one power has been recognized as having dominion over all the colonies or cities in the area.  It makes it easier to negotiate.  Now if you want to put layers under and over the State and call them Provinces, Counties, Duchies or Empires that's fine.  But they are all one and the same thing.

Cities seldom disappear (Carthage is an exception).  But all other organizations, all other borders come and go.  A government is a government whether we call it an empire or a dominion.  The difference between the British and Roman empires and anything the American's are doing is that the final court of appeal for all people with in those empires was in the Capital City.  The judges and senators, lords and privy councilors claimed eminent domain over all of the subjects.  They claimed legal authority.  The American's for all they throw their weight around don't claim that Canadians or Brits or Frenchmen for that matter must bend the knee to their Supreme Court.

On the other hand they do make that claim within all of their recognized borders, embassies and ships.  Exactly as Canada does.

The City of Vancouver is junior to province of BC which is junior to Canada.  When a dispute over law comes up which law trumps all others?

By contrast is there any circumstance where Canada, or any other country accepts that US law trumps theirs?

America may be the world's dominant military, economic and cultural force but it is not the world's dominant legal force.  In that sense, if America is to be seen as an Empire then it is unlike any other Empire ever seen before.

Cheers


----------



## Infanteer (22 Aug 2005)

Yes, I understand your argument and I will reiterate that defining "Empire" around geography fails to properly constitute what Empire is.   If I go off your definition, than technically, the City of Prince George is a "government that controls a variety of geographically dispersed communities".   Political dominion and power exists at many levels at the same time - from strata by-laws to the Hague War Crimes Tribunal.

As well, defining Empire by "Law" is also tricky, because law is a concept that is extremely dependent upon the society that produces it.   As well, Law is an internal process - talking about the Roman Empire strictly along the lines of "legal authority" does not paint an accurate picture of what the Roman Empire really was - how it interacted with the states and peoples around it and how the cultural, economic and military policies within Rome radiated and interacted with the outside world.

Look at regional power struggles - say the Warring States Period in Japan (a conflict amongst a homogeneous people) or say, the conflicts that united Spain or Britain (conflicts between dispartate socio-cultural groups).   In the end, you had a unified state.   Were any of these Empires?   No.   Tokugawa's military campaigns or the English colonization of Ireland were local events - nobody else really cared (if they heard about it).   But when Rome sent its Legions north, when the British branch of the Rothschilds decided to move some capital or when the Americans produced the Marshal Plan (or GATT, or went into Vietnam or Iraq, or started opening McDonalds everywhere, etc, etc) the World pays attention and states must react and craft their policies around these actions.

I guess one of the principle ideas that is tied with empire is that of hegemony.   Empire is hegemony at the "global" level - Empire occurs when the hegemons influence goes beyond its own regional, intrastate boundaries and becomes and interstate phenomenon that all are acutely aware of.

Edward is right, it is largely a game of semantics - but I believe it is important to properly define the fundamental points of the discussion if it is to be meaningful - which is why I challenge the notion that the sovereign authority of Canada and the global dominance of the United States are merely a difference of degrees and that both are Empires.

I do agree with Kirkhill and Edward on many of the other points regarding the durability of Empire.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Aug 2005)

Infanteer:

I'll concede. 

Cheers.


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Aug 2005)

If you define an Empire as "hegemony at the global level", including economic and political influence of other nations, couldn't we also define certain corporations as empires?  Certainly the oil giants can exert quite a bit of control through various means.  Any corporation with enough money has quite a bit of political and economic clout.  So I think your definition is flawed - despite these abilities I certainly wouldn't consider corporations to be empires.

All empires have had the same things in common - they've exerted supreme dominance over their colonies, by sending lords, barons, magistrates, etc., assisted by military forces, to control the local populations.  The US does not - in most cases - do this.  They obviously DO have some colonies, however, as you correcty pointed out, they hit a plateou and have not developed any new ones in a LONG time.  Building McDonalds franchies around the world, and selling Microsoft software to every nation, cannot be considered examples of Empire building.  All nations influence eachother, and in the moder community most nations have corporations which opperate in multiple other nations.  Also, fighting wars such as the ones the US fought in Vietnam and Iraq is also not an example of empire building - while their goal may have been to bring about friendly, democratic governments in those nations, they would NOT have had supreme control over them.

So if we only include their early colonies as examples of the American Empire, you gotta wonder how much time needs to pass before an Empire can be considered a country again.  The USSR for example would by deffinition certainly have been an empire, however, I can't recall anyone ever calling it that.  Once enough time has past, a conquered colony either rebels and splits off from the empire, or they are absorbed and are no longer considered a colony.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Aug 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> If you define an Empire as "hegemony at the global level", including economic and political influence of other nations, couldn't we also define certain corporations as empires?  Certainly the oil giants can exert quite a bit of control through various means.  Any corporation with enough money has quite a bit of political and economic clout.  So I think your definition is flawed - despite these abilities I certainly wouldn't consider corporations to be empires.



Well, considering that many US corporations have more resources at hand than many states, I wouldn't say you are far off.    There are always a few different groups/organizations within Empires that are fundamental to the strength of an Empire.  In Rome, the Senatorial class was important and a few key families were involved (especially when you considered how Roman law concerning the land outside of Rome evolved) - hell, the Roman civil war was nothing but a few families going at it.  Britain had its "movers" (Rothschild, Rhodes, the British East India Company, etc, etc) and "Pax America" is no different; the corporate world of the United States, going at full steam during and after WWII, found unlimited opportunity in the post-war reconstruction and layed the groundwork for over half a century of economic prosperity in the West.  In essence, corporations are part of the American "Empire"; since I'd venture that imperial hegemony is based off of ideas, the mechanics of an Empire doesn't always have to be machinery of the State.



> All empires have had the same things in common - they've exerted supreme dominance over their colonies, by sending lords, barons, magistrates, etc., assisted by military forces, to control the local populations.  The US does not - in most cases - do this.  They obviously DO have some colonies, however, as you correcty pointed out, they hit a plateou and have not developed any new ones in a LONG time.



I don't think "supreme dominance of colonies" is the defining feature of empire.  See above; I don't believe the Government of Canada exerting supreme dominance over the Metis was an act of Empire (nor did it make us one).  For another example, look at the Ottoman Empire - supreme dominance wasn't really there; sure it existed in law, but the Dey of Algeria or the Mamluks of Egypt probably didn't agree with this.  The Ottoman Empire, which existed for half a millennia, wasn't one of supreme dominance.



> Building McDonalds franchies around the world, and selling Microsoft software to every nation, cannot be considered examples of Empire building.  All nations influence eachother, and in the moder community most nations have corporations which opperate in multiple other nations.



I use McDonalds as a (somewhat flippant) example of cultural hegemony - Empires radiate culture; concepts like "lingua franca" (a good determinate of imperial status), style and fashion, religious beliefs, cultural norms, market rules and products, etc, etc.  You cannot look at the world today and not tell me that American culture is the vanguard of Pax Americana.  When I was overseas, there were stupid posters of Britney Spears (the singer, not the member here....) everywhere - get home and what do I see in my sisters room?  Just as it was said that a man could walk the length of Europe and be protected by the Laws of Rome, I can travel around the world and grab a Big Mac just about anywhere.  As trivial as pop culture icons like McDonalds and Britney Spears seem, they are very powerful symbols of the cultural hegemon.



> Also, fighting wars such as the ones the US fought in Vietnam and Iraq is also not an example of empire building - while their goal may have been to bring about friendly, democratic governments in those nations, they would NOT have had supreme control over them.



....a democratic government that is friendly to the liberal democratic world order, is it not?  Fighting a war to install a government friendly to your interests (puppet or not) is nothing new - just as the Americans propped up the Republic of South Vietnam, the Romans kept a friendly government in Armenia to offset Parthian strength in the East.  Use of the military to expand and enforce the ideal of Empire, no?  In the case of Pax Americana, the effort is to support the liberal democratic order, which (as Kirkhill mentioned earlier) is not a bad thing - the left just likes to make Empire seem bad in its never ending goal of self-flagellation.


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Aug 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, considering that many US corporations have more resources at hand than many states, I wouldn't say you are far off.      There are always a few different groups/organizations within Empires that are fundamental to the strength of an Empire.



Granted, corporations can be seen as tools of an empire, and would certainly prosper as part of one, however what I was pointing out is that by the definition you gave, they could actually BE empires.   In fact, if anything I'd say corporations are a better example of modern empires - they engage in hostile takeovers, they "colonize" and absorb other corporations.   When Microsoft takes over some puny little company, there's no doubt that they are entirealy in control - whereas any control the US government exerts over other countries depends on a variety of factors, meaning it's never absolute.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't think "supreme dominance of colonies" is the defining feature of empire.   See above; I don't believe the Government of Canada exerting supreme dominance over the Metis was an act of Empire (nor did it make us one).



I said that it's something that all empires have had in common, NOT that it's something EXCLUSIVE to empires.   Big difference.   And I'm not too clear on the history of the Metis, but I beleive Canada wasn't yet a soverign nation at that point - we were still a colony of England, which made it rather difficult for us to be considered an empire    Not important anyway, what I was arguing is that an empire is not an empire unless it has absolute dominance over it's colonies (or at least the majority of it's colonies)



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I use McDonalds as a (somewhat flippant) example of cultural hegemony - Empires radiate culture; concepts like "lingua franca" (a good determinate of imperial status), style and fashion, religious beliefs, cultural norms, market rules and products, etc, etc.   You cannot look at the world today and not tell me that American culture is the vanguard of Pax Americana.   When I was overseas, there were stupid posters of Britney Spears (the singer, not the member here....) everywhere - get home and what do I see in my sisters room?   Just as it was said that a man could walk the length of Europe and be protected by the Laws of Rome, I can travel around the world and grab a Big Mac just about anywhere.   As trivial as pop culture icons like McDonalds and Britney Spears seem, they are very powerful symbols of the cultural hegemon.



What about other symbols?   Shell is a company known world wide, and is currently the 4th largest corporation in the world.   Want to talk about huge corporations and well-known "symbols"?   How about Mitsui, Mitsubishi, Toyota Motors - all on the list of the worlds ten largest nations corporations?   Are the Dutch and the Japanese now also Empires?   Or maybe you're talking about cultural influence?   Well, France and Italy have always been considered to be in the forefront of the fashion industry, so arguably they have as much influence on global fashion trends as does the US.   As far as food goes, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, and Indian food are at least as popular around the world as is McDonalds - the only difference is that those nations do not yet have a large franchise which can market that food under a brand name.



Anyway, your argument has some merit to it in that I can see why YOU would cosider the US an empire, and can to a certain extent agree.   And no, I also do not consider empires to neccesarily be a negative thing.   I just think you're really stretching the deffinition of the word.   For every example you come up with of why you think the US is an empire, I can think of at least afew other countries which would fit the same criteria.   It's true that the US has a huge influence on most if not all the nations around the globe, however that alone does not an empire make.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Aug 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Granted, corporations can be seen as tools of an empire, and would certainly prosper as part of one, however what I was pointing out is that by the definition you gave, they could actually BE empires.   In fact, if anything I'd say corporations are a better example of modern empires - they engage in hostile takeovers, they "colonize" and absorb other corporations.   When Microsoft takes over some puny little company, there's no doubt that they are entirealy in control - whereas any control the US government exerts over other countries depends on a variety of factors, meaning it's never absolute.



Go over the history of the British East India Company in India.   The Dutch East India Company is another good example.   Corporations can most certainly be "empires" in their own right.   The key is that, although independent in legal terms, their imperial reach stems from a common imperial doctrine that seems to support the notion of Empire.   Was there really a difference between the British East India Company and the Crown when it came to ruling India?   The same can probably be said today - does it really matter if it is the captial of the United States government flowing into a country, or merely that of an American corporation?   As I said earlier, various parts of an "Imperial construct" can exist independently of the State.



> I said that it's something that all empires have had in common, NOT that it's something EXCLUSIVE to empires.   Big difference.


   

I never argued that it wasn't something that they had in common - I simply pointed out that it wasn't the defining feature.



> And I'm not too clear on the history of the Metis, but I beleive Canada wasn't yet a soverign nation at that point - we were still a colony of England, which made it rather difficult for us to be considered an empire    Not important anyway, what I was arguing is that an empire is not an empire unless it has absolute dominance over it's colonies (or at least the majority of it's colonies)



Better go over your history books again - here, I'll give you a hand.   Pay attention to the dates.



> What about other symbols?   Shell is a company known world wide, and is currently the 4th largest corporation in the world.   Want to talk about huge corporations and well-known "symbols"?   How about Mitsui, Mitsubishi, Toyota Motors - all on the list of the worlds ten largest nations corporations?   Are the Dutch and the Japanese now also Empires?   Or maybe you're talking about cultural influence?   Well, France and Italy have always been considered to be in the forefront of the fashion industry, so arguably they have as much influence on global fashion trends as does the US.   As far as food goes, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, and Indian food are at least as popular around the world as is McDonalds - the only difference is that those nations do not yet have a large franchise which can market that food under a brand name.



Nobody said that Empires didn't have competition along military, political, cultural, and economic lines.   None of this changes the fact that the US is still preponderant in all these aspects.



> Anyway, your argument has some merit to it in that I can see why YOU would cosider the US an empire, and can to a certain extent agree.   And no, I also do not consider empires to neccesarily be a negative thing.   I just think you're really stretching the deffinition of the word.   For every example you come up with of why you think the US is an empire, I can think of at least afew other countries which would fit the same criteria.   It's true that the US has a huge influence on most if not all the nations around the globe, however that alone does not an empire make.



A stretch?   Very well, give me your definition of what an Empire is and how America is or isn't one.

It defines the world economic order, it has the most powerful military force in the globe, it defines, sets, and fuels cultural trends (things like newsmedia, pop culture, and entertainment), and it is a leader in technological innovaton, advancement, and employment.   If that ain't "Empire", then I don't know what is.


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Aug 2005)

I'd go with "A *political unit* having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and *ruled* by a single supreme authority".

Abstract and unmeasurable "influence" doesn't make for an empire, it's just the way of globalization.  All nations influence eachother, so either you define a LOT of them as competing empires, or you can't rightly call any of them an empire.  Unless you can show that the US exercises supreme authority over other nations/territories, you can't realisticaly claim that they're an empire.  Either that or alternately you have to concede that by your logic, the Dutch, Japanese, Germans, Canadians, and English to name a few could also be considered Empires, just smaller, less succesfull ones.  And if we start applying the term that losely, it loses all meaning.  It's like when people start calling Bush a Nazi.  Or animal rights protestors comparing the treatment of animals to slavery, or the holocaust.  Sure, to some extent they have a point, and certain parallels can be drawn.  But when you take a term with a clear definition and try to mold it so it'll fit whatever point you're trying to make, well, that term starts to lose all meaning.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Aug 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> I'd go with "A *political unit* having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and *ruled* by a single supreme authority".





> Either that or alternately you have to concede that by your logic, the Dutch, Japanese, Germans, Canadians, and English to name a few could also be considered Empires, just smaller, less succesfull ones.   And if we start applying the term that losely, it loses all meaning.



But isn't the Netherlands, Japan, Germany, Canada, and England (to name a few) examples of "*political units* having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and *ruled* by a single supreme authority"?  What your definition describes is the sovereign nation-state: political units (states) that control extensive territory (Canada is pretty big and full of different groups of people) ruled by a single supreme authority (the Queen?  The Constitution?)  This was the same defintion I was arguing over with Kirkhill earlier today.

What I'm looking for is what sets the Empire apart from the rest.   What set Rome apart from the others.   What set the Ottomans apart, or the British, or the Americans.   That is why I pointed to hegemony on multiple dimentions.   Nothing more, nothing less.

Anyways, enough of the battle over semantics for me tonight.   

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2005)

OED 

hegemony: ruling by one State of a confederacy

confederacy: league, alliance, conspiracy

empire: supreme and extensive (political) dominion

dominion: lordship, sovereignty, control;  domains of feudal lord, territory of sovereign or government

political: of or affecting the State or its government

sovereign: supreme, unmitigated ..... (editorial comment - ne plus ultra)

State: organised political community under one government

government: 1. system of governing, form of organization of State.  2. body or successive bodies of persons governing a State; the State as an agent; an administration or ministry

And now back to our regularly scheduled debate....


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Aug 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> But isn't the Netherlands, Japan, Germany, Canada, and England (to name a few) examples of "*political units* having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and *ruled* by a single supreme authority"?   What your definition describes is the sovereign nation-state: political units (states) that control extensive territory (Canada is pretty big and full of different groups of people) ruled by a single supreme authority (the Queen?   The Constitution?)   This was the same defintion I was arguing over with Kirkhill earlier today.
> 
> What I'm looking for is what sets the Empire apart from the rest.   What set Rome apart from the others.   What set the Ottomans apart, or the British, or the Americans.   That is why I pointed to hegemony on multiple dimentions.   Nothing more, nothing less.



I get ya.  So where we differ isn't on the definition of the word "empire", but on the definition of the phrase "having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations".  The way I see it, that phrase refers to areas which differ greately from the original nation we're discussing.  So, think England's colonization of India, or North America.  One was a soverign nation, which makes it easy to define - the other was a lose collection of tribes, but still a distinctly different society from that of the colonists.  I suppose you could argue that by that definition Canada is an empire since we have large areas of land (whole provinces/territories) occupied only by aboriginal people, and I'm too rushed at the moment to think of any way to refute that   I suppose there are many countries which display different characteristics of empires, yet still cannot be classified as such.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Aug 2005)

And we come full circle (having lost everyone's interest in the process  ).

I guess I define Empire by who's at the top of the dog-pile; I was looking for those characteristics.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Aug 2005)

The definitions are interesting (if rather abstract), the American Republic has some of the characteristics of Empire, but not really enough to carry the title. *The true measure of past Empires was the ability to extract taxes or tributre from subsidiary states*. These states might have their own "king" or sovereign, parliament, senate or tribal councel, but when the rubber met the road, they either payed taxes and tribute to the centre or an Imperial Procouncel made sure it was done (often with the backing of the occupying Imperial legions).

Corporations cannot take on the role of Empire, since they are creatures of the social, legal and economic system where they operate. Coke or Shell can only operate where they have an expectation that contracts can be signed and enforced; and in this era, they do not maintain their own standing armies to do the enforcement. (Even the East India Company was rather limited in that regard, since shareholders are reluctent to pay for standing armies when they could be getting profits and dividends). It should be an interesting observation that the modern corporation didn't come into existence until the growth of parliamentry democracy starting in the Elizabethan age, and the only true competitors in terms of size and influence to Western multi-national corporations are unweildy and inefficient State monopolies, which grow to these large sizes because the taxpayer is forced to shoulder the risk (Bombardier, anyone?) 

America does get huge amounts of resources from the world, through the practice of *buying* things, and critics of the United States often focus on trade deficits as evidence of economic decline; rather the opposite of an Imperial system getting taxes and tribute from other nations. There is nothing to stop the United States from becoming an Empire (Democratic Empires have happened in the past, see Periclean Athens, the Res Publica Roma and the British Empire), using its military and commercial power to depose unfriendly regimes and setting up a permanent Procouncel  to extract taxes to pay for the regime change and occupation, but I don't think anyone can argue that current or near term trands in American politics are pointing in that direction.


----------



## squealiox (28 Aug 2005)

I'm not so sure it matters whether the US fits the definition of an "empire" or not. it's kind of an apple-and-oranges comparison, and i don't think there really is a meaningful historical precedent to the US's place in the world. the brits had a vast pool of unwilling subjects, and it cost them their shirts, while the us has a whole lot of influnce over (mainly) sometimes-willing democracies.

Anyway, the US is probably not declining in absolute terms, since it still has strong fundamentals (as well as a few very real problems, as mentioned in the article, like the twin deficits, etc). What is happening is that the US is gradually being eclipsed.
There's no way around the simple arithmetic that at least one of the two growing markets of 1bn+ population each will probably surpass the US economy sometime within the lifetime of people already born. even if these economies are operating at half their optimum efficiency. and that's not even counting the smaller big countries in SE Asia.

that's only the economic side of the equation, but the military balance will likely follow similar lines after the fact.

the only reason this should come as any sort of surprise is the fact we've had the better part of a century becoming accustomed to seeing our strategic rivals (the communist bloc) artificially preventing any possiblity of their own economic growth, and the non-aligned nations following suit.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Sep 2005)

America can become an Empire if it decides to collect taxes from the nations that are being policed or liberated by her efforts (If you want "international law", someone is going to have to walk the beat, and that someone will want to be paid). An "American Legion" of foreigners serving under the Americna Flag would go a long way towards making this possible.

Failing these steps, American power will continue to grow, although more slowly in relative terms, due to the flexible social fabric of their society. Innovative ideas and people can continue to rise to the top, and pull lots of others with them. The major challenger in the mid century will probably be India, and not China, since India has embraced market capitalism and a large segment of Indian society has adopted the more open social constructs of the west, through education and exposure to Western practice. (In absolute terms, this is only a small fraction of the billion or so Indians, but the size of the cadre would probably outnumber the similar cadre of managers, enterpraners, engineers etc. in Canada). China's social and political fabric is much more rigid, and so I don't think they will achieve their full potential.

The only way to creat a rapid decline in American power is "Imperial Overstreach", and a series of destructive wars such as those the Spanish fought in the 1500s, the tow World Wars which drained the British Empire or the Cold War, which ate the economy of the Soviet Union. A war with China would probably be the only event on a big enough scale to count (only 10-12% of the US Armed Forces are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, so there is still a lot of streach there), either a hot war or a long and grinding Cold War.


----------



## Glorified Ape (11 Sep 2005)

Thought this might provide some interesting reading given the subject.

From the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics (I know dictionaries often come up short, but this one's pretty good most of the time):

" Deriving from the Latin term (imperator) for a supreme military and, later, political leader, empire came to mean a territorial realm over which exclusive authority was exercised by a single sovereign. Thus the preamble of the English Act of Appeals (1533) justified denial of the right of subjects of the Crown to appeal to courts outside the realm or territory of England on the ground (however dubious) 'that this realm of England is an empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and king'. 

  The term soon came to be applied to the much more loosely controlled and heterogeneous domains of princes such as the Hapsburg Emperor Charles V, even when his power was manifestly copmromised and limited in many places, and most of all in the so-called Holy Roman Empire from which he derived the title, by continuing privileges of the Church, lesser princes, cities, guilds, electors, and estates. Likewise, Queen Victoria adopted the style of Queen Empress in 1877 at precisely the moment when the addition of India and new African dependencies to her dominions led them to resemble the ramshackle constitutional amalgams of her Austrian and Russian cousins more than the older English ideal of a contiguous territory with a homogeneous population. Thereafter, 'empire' was generally taken to denote an extensive group of states, whether formed by colonization or conquest, subject to the authority of a metropolitan or imperial state, even when - as in France or the USSR - that dominant state became a republic lacking an emperor or empress at its head. In this later sense, well established by the early years of the twentieth century, empire became closely associate with 'imperialism'." 

Imperialism:

" Domination or control by one country or group of people over others, in ways assumed to be at the expense of the latter. Beyond this sweeping definition, there is much disagreement over the precise nature and the causes of imperialism, about what the clearest examples are, about its consequences, and therefore over the period which exemplifies it best. 

  The so-called new imperialism pertains to the imposition of colonial rule by European countries, especially the 'scramble for Africa', during the late nineteenth century. Many writers have construed imperialism in terms of what they believe were the motivating forces behind the territorial expansion. Among these, Hobson, Luxemburg, Bukharin, and especially Lenin focused on economic factors, such as the rational pursuit of new markets and sources of raw materials. The last named argued, in _Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917)_, that imperialism is an economic necessity of the industrialized capitalist economies, seeking to offset the declining tendency of the rate of profit, by exporting capital in the pursuit of investment opportunities overseas. For Lenin, imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. 

   In a very different theory, Schumpeter (1919) defined imperialism as the non-rational and objectless disposition on the part of a state to unlimited forcible expansion. Imperialism is rooted in the psychology of the rulers and the effects of surviving pre-capitalist social structures, not the economic interests of nation or class. Yet other accounts view imperialism as an outgrowth of popular nationalism, a function of the need to underwrite the welfare state which helps pacify the working class (notably in Britian), a matter of personal adventurism, an application of Social Darwinism to struggles between races, a civilizing mission, and as simply one dimension of international rivalry for power and prestige. The latter in particular means that imperialism is potentially a feature of leading socialist as well as capitalist states. 

...

The concept of 'informal imperialism' is said to render direct political control unnecessary, in the presence of other ways of exercising domination, for example through technological superiority or the free trade imperialism of a leading economic power, and cultural imperialism."

...

This imperialism without colonies was first characterized by Ghana's first President, Kwame Nkrumah... 'The essence of neo-colonialism is that the State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality, its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside.'  "

I wouldn't personally characterize America as a formal empire but I would put it under the "informal empire" by virtue of its "informally imperialist" (not so informal at times) posture and level of control over many countries. 



> The only way to creat a rapid decline in American power is "Imperial Overstreach", and a series of destructive wars such as those the Spanish fought in the 1500s, the tow World Wars which drained the British Empire or the Cold War, which ate the economy of the Soviet Union. A war with China would probably be the only event on a big enough scale to count (only 10-12% of the US Armed Forces are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, so there is still a lot of streach there), either a hot war or a long and grinding Cold War.



Good point, though I disagree that "Imperial Overstretch" must have military overstretch as a facilitator (which I think you were getting at, though I may be wrong). I think political overstretch can do wonders where military overstretch may not be reached. By political overstretch I mean an extension and employment of power beyond what the system (international) and its actors can tolerate. I think military action can cause it, but not necessarily because that military action constitutes military over-extension but rather that the military action asserts power in such a way that, though the power is temporarily expanded, the problems it creates eventually cause a decline rather than an overall growth as their persistence is greater than that of the advantage gained. Combine that with the "balancing and bandwagoning" (an overly simplistic characterization but a relatively accurate one nonetheless, I think) tendencies of states and all that wonderful complex interdependence going around and I think I'd have to wager that American power is more likely to decline over the next few decades, especially with the growth and expansion of non-state actors like the EU, NAFTA, FTAA, East Asia bloc, etc.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Sep 2005)

Just because I'm too lazy to read the thread, can someone recap all the foreign nations the US currently rules?


----------



## a_majoor (12 Sep 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> The term soon came to be applied to the much more loosely controlled and heterogeneous domains of princes such as the Hapsburg Emperor Charles V, even when his power was manifestly copmromised and limited in many places, and most of all in the so-called Holy Roman Empire from which he derived the title, by continuing privileges of the Church, lesser princes, cities, guilds, electors, and estates. Likewise, Queen Victoria adopted the style of Queen Empress in 1877 at precisely the moment when the addition of India and new African dependencies to her dominions led them to resemble the ramshackle constitutional amalgams of her Austrian and Russian cousins more than the older English ideal of a contiguous territory with a homogeneous population. Thereafter, 'empire' was generally taken to denote an extensive group of states, whether formed by colonization or conquest, subject to the authority of a metropolitan or imperial state, even when - as in France or the USSR - that dominant state became a republic lacking an emperor or empress at its head. In this later sense, well established by the early years of the twentieth century, empire became closely associate with 'imperialism'."



The first such example was the Delian League, which was overtly the creature of Athens, and subject to the rule (and whims) of the Democratic _Eklassia_ and _Boule_. No formal Emperor ever ruled the Delian League, but it was openly aknowledged to be an Empire even by the Athenians themselves (most translations of the Funeral Oration include Pericles' admission that Athens now had an Empire, and it would be more dangerous to let it go than continue to rule it).
   


> In a very different theory, Schumpeter (1919) defined imperialism as the non-rational and objectless disposition on the part of a state to unlimited forcible expansion. Imperialism is rooted in the psychology of the rulers and the effects of surviving pre-capitalist social structures, not the economic interests of nation or class. Yet other accounts view imperialism as an outgrowth of popular nationalism, a function of the need to underwrite the welfare state which helps pacify the working class (notably in Britian), a matter of personal adventurism, an application of Social Darwinism to struggles between races, a civilizing mission, and as simply one dimension of international rivalry for power and prestige. The latter in particular means that imperialism is potentially a feature of leading socialist as well as capitalist states.



I like this group of theories. The circumstances which led to the creation of Empires differed over time and space, and except for the end result, it is difficult to compare Rome with Spain in the 1500s, or Victorian England, or the USSR.



> Good point, though I disagree that "Imperial Overstretch" must have military overstretch as a facilitator (which I think you were getting at, though I may be wrong). I think political overstretch can do wonders where military overstretch may not be reached. By political overstretch I mean an extension and employment of power beyond what the system (international) and its actors can tolerate. I think military action can cause it, but not necessarily because that military action constitutes military over-extension but rather that the military action asserts power in such a way that, though the power is temporarily expanded, the problems it creates eventually cause a decline rather than an overall growth as their persistence is greater than that of the advantage gained. Combine that with the "balancing and bandwagoning" (an overly simplistic characterization but a relatively accurate one nonetheless, I think) tendencies of states and all that wonderful complex interdependence going around and I think I'd have to wager that American power is more likely to decline over the next few decades, especially with the growth and expansion of non-state actors like the EU, NAFTA, FTAA, East Asia bloc, etc.



Imperial overstreach by military means is the only historical example that I know of. Either the Empire finds itself surrounded by enemies and engulfed in wars which drain the economic and social resources of the Empire (Rome, Spain and 20th Century British Empire), or they allow their military and social machinery to decay to the point that they are overrun by Barbarians (China, several times i.e. they no longer had the resources to hold onto their existing Empire), or they engage in wars of conquest, which eventually drain the economy and destroys the social fabric of the nation (Macedonia, 16th Century Sweden, 20th Century Germany, 20th Century Russia). 

Some of the factors you name such as free trade blocs are the pillars of American strength, and a return to mercentilism or destructive trade wars would undercut much of American financial and economic power. Others, like the EU and China, I feel are too static and rigid to be able to mount a long term challenge to American power. After all, even when Athens lost the flower of her fleet and army after the disasterous Sicilian expedition, they could still reorganize and fight against the Spartans and their allies for another decade, wheras Spartas defeat was total and irreversable after the Thebans marched through Lacedomea a few decades later. Similarly, the United States was able to engage with all cylenders durign the Reagan years and mount military, diplomatic and economic challenges to the USSR that the latter was finally unable to meet, collapsing and ending the Cold War with the fall of the Berlin Wall.


----------



## Glorified Ape (13 Sep 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The first such example was the Delian League, which was overtly the creature of Athens, and subject to the rule (and whims) of the Democratic _Eklassia_ and _Boule_. No formal Emperor ever ruled the Delian League, but it was openly aknowledged to be an Empire even by the Athenians themselves (most translations of the Funeral Oration include Pericles' admission that Athens now had an Empire, and it would be more dangerous to let it go than continue to rule it).
> 
> I like this group of theories. The circumstances which led to the creation of Empires differed over time and space, and except for the end result, it is difficult to compare Rome with Spain in the 1500s, or Victorian England, or the USSR.



Good point - I don't think any one factor can account for it. Just as with (seemingly) everything else in human affairs, bivariate relationships are red herrings. 

Maybe you should write for the Oxford... I could never really get into Greek lit much - too verbose. 



> Imperial overstreach by military means is the only historical example that I know of. Either the Empire finds itself surrounded by enemies and engulfed in wars which drain the economic and social resources of the Empire (Rome, Spain and 20th Century British Empire), or they allow their military and social machinery to decay to the point that they are overrun by Barbarians (China, several times i.e. they no longer had the resources to hold onto their existing Empire), or they engage in wars of conquest, which eventually drain the economy and destroys the social fabric of the nation (Macedonia, 16th Century Sweden, 20th Century Germany, 20th Century Russia).



But I think the situation now, with America, is different - the "informal imperialism" plays a big part in the distinction, I believe. The fact that overt control and presence aren't a requisite for empire anymore would change the factors which might bring about an erosion of the "empire". I think you're right that military action might be a prime mover, but not necessarily by way of military "overstretch". I think it may be possible that, while the military isn't "overstretched", the time and method of its employment may push the "empire" beyond what its political power can sustain. Not so much that the "colonies" would revolt, but rather that the level of control would decline by virtue of a lack of support, foreign and domestic. Since the "empire" is informal, it's more reliant on consent for its survival and thus spin and politicking are more essential. At the same time, by virtue of the "empire's" reliance on economies, governments, and organizations outside its purview, its erosion might be brought about by a decline in support from these actors too, which are even harder to influence and control since they're not under the "informal" umbrella. 



> Some of the factors you name such as free trade blocs are the pillars of American strength, and a return to mercentilism or destructive trade wars would undercut much of American financial and economic power.



I think you're right insofar as they certainly started out as pillars of strength but I think they're becoming a mixed blessing. Just as they allowed a greater flow of trade between countries, and thus a greater level of dependency on America by such countries, they worked the same vice-versa. I think this is especially true of bodies such as the WTO which bind the US as much as aid it. Regional economic bodies like the EU are going to become the standard, methinks, and while they may open alot of doors and "widen the frames", they also turn a region of atomistic actors into a conglomerate which is more independent in its ability to form policy and exert pressure, possibly contrary to US interests. 



> Others, like the EU and China, I feel are too static and rigid to be able to mount a long term challenge to American power. After all, even when Athens lost the flower of her fleet and army after the disasterous Sicilian expedition, they could still reorganize and fight against the Spartans and their allies for another decade, wheras Spartas defeat was total and irreversable after the Thebans marched through Lacedomea a few decades later.



lol.. I vaguely reading about that sometime... Thucydides or Aeschylus or something. I don't disagree on your evaluation of the EU and China presently, but I think it's still far too early to write them off. I think the seed's already been planted and as the EU and China develop, the US is going to decline in its "empire". I'm not necessarily saying it's a zero-sum affair, but it gets closer to one the greater the disparity between US policy and external interests. 



> Similarly, the United States was able to engage with all cylenders durign the Reagan years and mount military, diplomatic and economic challenges to the USSR that the latter was finally unable to meet, collapsing and ending the Cold War with the fall of the Berlin Wall.



I don't disagree, but I think the situation between the US and the present actors is quite different. Not only does the US do a great deal of trade with China and the EU but they're not nearly (at least where the EU is concerned) as idealistically conflicting. Nor is the "battlefield" as clearcut as it was during the Cold War, especially with international arbitrators like the WTO acting as third-party intercession along established lines which can serve either party's interests, depending on the circumstances. The US/EU steel disagreement stands out as a prime example, in my mind. The EU's threatened targeting of US products originating in states supportive of Bush in a bid to see him lose the election (and his backing-down in the face of such consequences as well as the WTO's ruling) is a good example of how regional conglomeration, free trade, and international NGO's like the WTO can comprise an erosion of US power.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Sep 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Just because I'm too lazy to read the thread, can someone recap all the foreign nations the US currently rules?



They got a flag planted on the moon, don't they?


----------



## Britney Spears (14 Sep 2005)

> Just because I'm too lazy to read the thread, can someone recap all the foreign nations the US currently rules?



Iraq and Afghanistan kind of spring to mind. Maybe you've heard of them?


----------



## Infanteer (14 Sep 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Iraq and Afghanistan kind of spring to mind. Maybe you've heard of them?



Note the traditional Afghani bodyguard at the Loya Jirga.


----------



## Britney Spears (14 Sep 2005)

Sorry, do you mean Canada is one of the countries currently ruled by the US? Or that Canada is one of the countries participating in the US led occupation of Afghanistan?


----------



## Cloud Cover (14 Sep 2005)

The article below belongs in this thread. I think the article is fair commentary. It is not an unsubstantiated personal attack on the Globe and Mail author referenced in the main body of the article. It is not libellous nor slanderous. The article does cause one to wonder, though, what is the agenda of the Globe and Mail, and has the Anti-American vitriol in Canadian printed media increased lately and to what end? What is the objective with the sort of works described?     

The piece is worth finding on the Web, for it reads as an unintentionally hilarious satire of the claptrap one might hear from a poli-sci freshman babbling about her seminar course on Noam Chomsky.

Yet, there it was in the Globe and Mail. The above paragraph in particular explains part of the problem with many Canadian journalists lately, and one must now seriously start asking whether or not we as a society should continue to subsidize (with our tax dollars universities and colleges) which graduate people who produce the material that Jonathan Kay writes about in this editorial.   

PUBLICATION:   National Post 
DATE:   2005.09.14 
EDITION:   National 
SECTION:   Editorials 
PAGE:   A16 
COLUMN:   Jonathan Kay 
BYLINE:   Jonathan Kay 
SOURCE:   National Post 
ILLUSTRATION: Black & White Photo: Front page of Saturday's Globe and MailFocus section   
NOTE: jkay@nationalpost.com 
WORD COUNT:   956 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A moment of shame for The Globe and Mail

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Saturday, The Globe and Mail published "The flagging empire," a mammoth, 5,300-word essay devoted to the theme that America is a racist, bankrupt, war-mongering hellhole, sliding inexorably toward "oligarchic totalitarianism." 

The piece is worth finding on the Web, for it reads as an unintentionally hilarious satire of the claptrap one might hear from a poli-sci freshman babbling about her seminar course on Noam Chomsky. The author, Paul William Roberts, careens breathlessly from U.S. Constitutional history to the Middle East to Asian geopolitics -- the whole dizzying trajectory bound together by nothing more than a generalized contempt for the United States. To the extent he adds anything to the likes of Chomsky and other hard-left America-bashers, it is a sickening schadenfreude at the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina. 

Why should such a hateful specimen be featured on the front page of the newspaper's Saturday Focus section? For the same reason anti-Americanism flourishes everywhere in Canada: It permits Canadians to feel superior. And in this regard, no one puts the case better than Roberts. Canada, he writes, stands "among the few that have managed to achieve anything approaching democracy's ideals for a peaceful egalitarian society." America, by contrast, is a nation in "the death throes of republicanism." 

What is more amazing than the sheer hatefulness of Roberts' tone, however, is how many obvious mistakes he got past the Globe's editors. Some examples: 

Roberts: "It is safe to say that relocating more than a million people, along with the loss of the nation's largest port, and the other economic consequences from Hurricane Katrina will bankrupt the United States. Or would, if anyone dared to call in the country's debts ... No other [nation] has ever racked up such a tab." 

Actually, the best estimates suggest the cost of Hurricane Katrina will be minimal in comparison to the size of the U.S. economy -- a few day's worth of the country's US$11-trillion-plus annual GDP -- which explains why U.S. stock markets actually rose substantially between the time Katrina hit and the time Roberts' article appeared. 

As for that aside about America's tab, the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is less than Europe's, and less than America's own post-Second World War average. 

Roberts: "Shahid Javed Burki, former vice-president of the World Bank's China Department and a former Pakistani finance minister, forecasts that China will probably have enough purchasing power to surpass the United States as the world's largest economy this year." 

An amazing claim, given that even the most generous measure available shows China's economy to be US$4-trillion dollars smaller than America's. The explanation is that Burki never said what Roberts claimed he'd said. What he stated is that China's economy might overtake that of the the United States in 20 years. 

Roberts on the real reason America waged the Iraq war: "Before the invasion of Iraq, OPEC apparently was considering whether to start trading in dual currencies, and some economists believe that an announcement like this would send the value of a dollar falling by up to 40%. By gaining control of the Iraqi oil fields -- the world's second richest after Saudi Arabia -- the United States has effectively prevented an assault on the dollar." 

Forty percent. Wow. That would mean the Canadian dollar would actually be worth more than the greenback overnight -- an astonishing result. So you'd think the Globe's editors would check the source. 

I did. And I found out the identity of the "economists" Roberts consulted. 

Turns out the 40% figure originates with a "personal research project" posted on the Internet by an American health-care worker named William Clark. Among Clark's many astounding claims is that "the effect of an OPEC switch to the Euro would be [that] the dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40%." Clark's source? "An astute and anonymous friend." This friend, apparently, has morphed into what Roberts calls "some economists." 

It goes on. Roberts: "The Bush administration used the September, 2001, attacks as an excuse to pursue its thwarted plan for a pipeline taking oil from the Caspian through Afghanistan to the Pakistani port of Karachi." 

This 9/11-era conspiracy theory would have been easy for Globe editors to debunk, since all you'd have to do is investigate whether any U.S. company had actually built the sort of pipeline Roberts describes. (Four years after the Taliban's demise, there have been elections -- but alas, no such pipeline.) 

Roberts on U.S. State Department policy planner George Kennan: "Only five countries, [Kennan] stated confidently, could ever pose [a serious threat to the United States]: Britain, Germany, Japan, Israel and Russia ... The five-enemies theory is said to be one reason for the Pentagon's shape." 

Problem: The Pentagon was dedicated in 1943. The State of Israel didn't come into being until 1948. Where Roberts came up with this bizarre whopper I have no idea. It reads like something out of a modern-day Protocols of the Elders of Zion. 

I could go on: The U.S. population is about 300 million, not 200 million, as Roberts writes. George Washington was not the U.S. president at the time he signed the U.S. Constitution. The term "al-Qaeda" does not refer to "a database kept by the CIA." And I don't even know where to begin with such ludicrous statements as, "the only successful wars [the American Empire] has ever waged are the ones against the environment and its own people." 

What does that even mean? 

But is there really any sense in parsing Roberts' feverish ramblings? To the extent this essay had any motive, it was not to make a logical point through facts and arguments, but to stir up atavistic hatred for America. 

What a wasted mind is Roberts'. And what a disgrace to the Globe and Mail that its editors let this hateful, error-littered screed stain the newspaper's otherwise respectable pages.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Sep 2005)

Sherwood:

Commenting on US Supreme Court Justices and US Federal appointees is the only outlet we have.  We can't influence our own federal appointments or selection of Justices.   Apparently we're too civilized to be that democratic.

Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Sep 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Sherwood:
> 
> Commenting on US Supreme Court Justices and US Federal appointees is the only outlet we have.   We can't influence our own federal appointments or selection of Justices.     Apparently we're too civilized to be that democratic.
> 
> Cheers.


Too true, too true.... :brickwall:


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Sep 2005)

>Iraq and Afghanistan kind of spring to mind. Maybe you've heard of them?

The US rules those nations?  It is to laugh.  How much tribute in oil, money, and opium did the US extract last year?


----------



## Infanteer (14 Sep 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The US rules those nations?   It is to laugh.   How much tribute in oil, money, and opium did the US extract last year?



How much tribute did the Soviet Union get from the Eastern Bloc?


----------



## Glorified Ape (15 Sep 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Well I am beginning to wonder how far some Canadian's unhealthy obsession with the US will take them?
> 
> Yesterday from an on-line version of Canada's influential newspaper.....a poll asking about the U.S. Supreme Court Nominee and what will happen if he is confirmed?     Or on a previous day, should the FEMA director be fired or forced to resign?....that is just not healthy......



We can't all be fanatically insular and autocentric.


----------



## paracowboy (15 Sep 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> We can't all be fanatically insular and autocentric.


oh, please  : You're brighter than that. Please, tell me you don't suffer from Jan Brady Syndrome.


----------



## Glorified Ape (15 Sep 2005)

I never said I wasn't insular and autocentric, just not fanatically so. 

Btw.. please clarify: "Jan Brady syndrome".


----------



## Infanteer (15 Sep 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Btw.. please clarify: "Jan Brady syndrome".



"MARSHA, MARSHA, MARSHA" - you get the point.  Don't be a Jan Brady.


----------



## Glorified Ape (15 Sep 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> "MARSHA, MARSHA, MARSHA" - you get the point.   Don't be a Jan Brady.



I thought Jan was the mom... before my time I guess. 

Anyways, I don't see how that constituted Jan Brady syndrome - a bit knee-jerk, admittedly, but I fail to see the Jan Connection.


----------



## paracowboy (15 Sep 2005)

"Jan Brady Syndrome" is the name I've given to that uniquely Canadian, (and primarily Central, urban Canadian, at that) attitude wherein, rather than face the problems we have, fix 'em, and become respectable, and respected World Citizens, we'd prefer to wallow in our own mediocrity and snipe at our neighbours to the South for maintaining their status. I equate it with that knee-jerk Anti-Americanism so common in parts of Canada. Wherein, everything the Yanks do is automatically evil, or stupid. Just as foolish as any other stereotype. But, in this case, it also smacks of the sort of snivelling found in Jan Brady's constant anti-Marsha complaints.

It's demeaning, really. It comes across as insecure and whiny.


 (wonder if I should patent it?)


----------



## Monsoon (16 Sep 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> "Jan Brady Syndrome" is the name I've given to that uniquely Canadian, (and primarily Central, urban Canadian, at that) attitude wherein, rather than face the problems we have, fix 'em, and become respectable, and respected World Citizens, we'd prefer to wallow in our own mediocrity and snipe at our neighbours to the South for maintaining their status. I equate it with that knee-jerk Anti-Americanism so common in parts of Canada. Wherein, everything the Yanks do is automatically evil, or stupid. Just as foolish as any other stereotype. But, in this case, it also smacks of the sort of snivelling found in Jan Brady's constant anti-Marsha complaints.
> 
> It's demeaning, really. It comes across as insecure and whiny.


Yes, Albertans complaining about Eastern Canada that way really does sound whiny and insecure.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Sep 2005)

Quote,
_Yes, Albertans complaining about Eastern Canada that way really does sound whiny and insecure._

OUCH!!!! Para takes one right between the eyes......I can't wait to see if he gets up before the 10 count. :-*


----------



## Jed (16 Sep 2005)

I don't know, hamiltongs, I think I prefer ' whiny and insecure ' to be percieved as a ' pompous, we know better than you, @ss'  ;D


----------



## paracowboy (16 Sep 2005)

no, not complaining, attempting to provide guidance in the simple concept of independence. Accepting of personal responsibility, and the seeking personal growth. It's much more satisfying than laying back and whining that the rest of school doesn't give you the attention you think you deserve.
But, it's more difficult. Which is why Jan lived her entire life in Marsha's shadow.


----------



## Monsoon (17 Sep 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> no, not complaining, attempting to provide guidance in the simple concept of independence. Accepting of personal responsibility, and the seeking personal growth. It's much more satisfying than laying back and whining that the rest of school doesn't give you the attention you think you deserve.
> But, it's more difficult. Which is why Jan lived her entire life in Marsha's shadow.


I'm just saying, at the risk of knocking this thread further off course, that there isn't much difference between what you're saying Eastern Canadians do to the US and what you yourself are doing to Eastern Canadians.  In both cases, a more powerful group is criticised for every action it takes in the furtherance of its self-interest: an attitude that says "everything Yanks do is automatically evil or stupid" is complained about in a diatribe essentially accusing everything Easterners do of being "mediocre and anti-American".

You're welcome to use the strawman of your choosing to blame for things you don't like, but at least be aware that _all_ stereotypes are unfair, even those condemning Easterners.


----------



## paracowboy (17 Sep 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I'm just saying, at the risk of knocking this thread further off course, that there isn't much difference between what you're saying Eastern Canadians do to the US and what you yourself are doing to Eastern Canadians.   In both cases, a more powerful group is criticised for every action it takes in the furtherance of its self-interest: an attitude that says "everything Yanks do is automatically evil or stupid" is complained about in a diatribe essentially accusing everything Easterners do of being "mediocre and anti-American".
> 
> You're welcome to use the strawman of your choosing to blame for things you don't like, but at least be aware that _all_ stereotypes are unfair, even those condemning Easterners.


 I don't *blame* Central Canada for anything. I lament a small, but vocal, segment's bizarre insecurity issue. I hope by constantly pointing out the silliness of it, that segment will grow out of it, and the nation as a whole can go to the prom without worrying about what Marsha is wearing.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Sep 2005)

You wouldn't believe the Jan Brady syndrome in Northern B.C. - mostly revolves around the Softwood Lumber dispute (which I think we decided here was an illegal subsidy).  I'd say it is spread evenly throughout the population - there's just more people in Ontario so you tend to hear it more (ie: where is Carrolyn Parrish from?  ).


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Sep 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Just because I'm too lazy to read the thread, can someone recap all the foreign nations the US currently rules?


American Samoa 
Canal Zone 
Guam 
Northern Mariana Islands 
Puerto Rico 
U.S. Virgin Islands


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Sep 2005)

The US turned over the Canal Zone to Panama several years ago, but may have a garrison there. The others areas, or at least most of them, have status as United States territory and their citizens are American citizens.


----------



## Recce41 (17 Sep 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The United States is not an empire. Part of the reason for the failure of other empire's was their inability to fund their military to maintain control of their far flung colonies. In an empire you have colonies that are rich and others that are poor. The rich colonies subsidize the poor ones.
> 
> The US economy is the strongest economy in the world. Job growth is the best of any industrialized world. Taxation is conducive to investment and job growth. The trade deficit isnt important. The democrats decried Bush's tax cuts. Yet those tax cuts have fueled the rebound of the economy. We have a true free market economy and as long as those policies are in force the US will enjoy a very strong economy. But one thing I can guarantee, if the US economy collapses so will the world economy as we are so intertwined. Remember the great depression was world wide.



 But a country trillions in debt.


----------



## Recce41 (17 Sep 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The invasion of Iraq WAS NOT illegal. This is a lie spread by the anti war crowd. Second, 60% of the population was under the heel of the Sunni's who comprised 20% of the population. Now the Sunni's are fighting to prevent majority rule.


 
 It was illegal. It was ratified by the UN. So where is the US, in Africa? How most people see it is Iraq has oil, Africa has well? Yes oil has been found in Africa, but to get it would cost more. If a soldier life is no cost, what is?


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Sep 2005)

> But a country trillions in debt.



How much is the mortgage on your house recceguy?   Credit cards? Car Loan?  How comfortable are you with your creditors?  Anybody owe you money?  Money in the bank or RRSPs?  Or are you just surviving on your income?

Obviously not looking for answers to these questions.

Ii is not so much the size of the debt as whether you can service the debt, still live a good life and whether you and your creditors trust each other.  Is it in their interest to call in all your loans and bankrupt you?

It might be in Osama's interest to try and sink the US economy.  I doubt if it is in the interest of anybody else just now.....and that includes China and Russia.  I don't think India and Europe have ANY desire to sink the Yanks.  (Strike that Some Europeans and Some Canadians and Some others probably think Osama is on the right track).

Cheers.


----------



## onecat (17 Sep 2005)

"Look at regional power struggles - say the Warring States Period in Japan (a conflict amongst a homogeneous people) or say, the conflicts that united Spain or Britain (conflicts between dispartate socio-cultural groups).   In the end, you had a unified state.   Were any of these Empires?   No.   Tokugawa's military campaigns or the English colonization of Ireland were local events "

I would to disagree here.   yes this late in coming only just started to read this thread.   When the English decided they own the whole thing and wanted to expand their nation... that was emprire building.   The Welsh or Scots weren't interested in becoming part of a greater England; they were already nations of their own; had their own laws and cultures..and fought for centires to stop this.   Its still empire building even if the English succussful in creating a new nation out of their colonizations of Scotland and Wales.. and so well with lreland.   local events don't stop an empire from growing, in the case of the UK the fact that it was island helped to keep it local.. but again its empire building on the part of English.   Another e.g would be Sweden in 1600.. it was expanding in what was poland and russia and well no one really cared but the people and nations who were being colonized.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Sep 2005)

Welcome aboard Radiohead!

Quick summary:

Is America an Empire? No, not by any of the usual historical indicators.

Is America in Decline? No, not by any objective measure, although there are changes to the relative rankings of various factors as other nations grow and mature.

Are there Challengers to American Power? Yes. Some, like Iran want to be regional hegemons, so seek nuclear weapons and sponsor terrorism in order to make the exercise of American power in the region too costly to contemplate. Some like the EU, China and Russia seek great power status for various reasons, but I believe they have "structural defects" in their social and economic systems which will prevent them from mounting a successful non military challenge (i.e supplement American culture, become the preferred destination for immigration and investment  or overtake the US economy) anytime soon. My own sense of things is that India, with its huge population, commanding access to the oceans and (most importantly) fairly flexible social system (relative to the others) will become the surprise contender by mid century.

Are their other factors which could reduce American power? As Donald Rumsfeldt has pointed out, there are "Known" dangers which threaten the US, "Known unknowns" where we know the problems but do not have precise data to plot responses; and "Unknown Unknowns", which are dangers we don't even recognize.

For all; read Robert Kaplan's books "An Empire Wilderness" and "The Ends of the Earth" and Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" to get a big picture feel for what the future might hold.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Sep 2005)

VDH did a debate on the topic of is "America an Empire?" with Arianna Huffington. It is interesting to watch, but Huffington does not even argue her case (affirmative). VDH has made his case here: 

http://www.gvsu.edu/hauenstein/?id=39732460-CA39-66C7-38B7D659E313B43B&CFID=9331222&CFTOKEN=45293025

http://www.gvsu.edu/hauenstein/?id=310A88F5-EC1D-D7A1-EE3A59A64B20394F&CFID=9331222&CFTOKEN=45293025


----------



## Recce41 (23 Sep 2005)

Baker
 There are Canadians (troops) there, by the way. Canada has taken the lead for Africian rebiulding. Old Jean plegged money yrs ago into Africa. Most Africans don't trust the western countries, that is why, there is not a full force of western PKs. 
 As for debt, personal in both countries are equal, as I would agree, but goverment debt is what I'm talking about.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Sep 2005)

The debt is payed through our taxes, and the figures of debt/person are derived by dividing the amount of government debt by the population. To put this in some perspective, that would be half my gross salary.

I believe what S-Baker is referring to is Canada taking an effective presence in Africa, rather than some "feel good" photo ops and a pittance of cash (relative to both our GDP and the need). The commitment of 10% of the US armed forces and billions of dollars to Iraq would indicate the actual scale of commitment "we" would have to undertake if we wanteed to make a lasting difference in Africa. Given the corrupt and dysfunctional nature of most African "governments", we would actually have to govern ourselves and establish everything from scratch and stay for at least a generation to raise and train a cadre of leaders and educators in Western values (like property rights and Rule of Law) or things will simply fall apart when we leave.


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Sep 2005)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> Baker
> There are Canadians (troops) there, by the way. Canada has taken the lead for Africian rebiulding.



The US federal government gave $3.4 Billion dollars to Africa in 2004.   The ammount has been slowly increasing, in 2000 it was just under 3 billion.   How exactly has Canada taken the lead?   By proposing that whacked-out debt-cancellation idea?



			
				Recce41 said:
			
		

> As for debt, personal in both countries are equal, as I would agree, but goverment debt is what I'm talking about.



Uh....I can see you're rather confused.   Might want to re-read his post and then re-think that.


----------



## Recce41 (24 Sep 2005)

48
 I did read his post. Yes Canada is in debt, but it how our debt is incured. I kinda got the low down from my sister in law, a CA for the Goverment of Canada. Debt can be incured by many ways. The 2 biggest for a goverment is low export and high import and to borrow of the world bank. There is also in country purchases that have to be payed from taxes. Exports can change the debt slowly, borrowing very fast if not controled, and in country debt is the quickest way. 
 To pay it off can be done in ways the no interest is payed. Exports, charging no inport tax. borrowing from the bank investing in coutries such as in Africa, SA, Far East. In house debt is what a goverment buys from companies, giving tax brakes to them, etc.
 Personal debt is different, it is what each person owes and not what the goverment owes. If we included the goverment and we be nude with a barrel. 
 What I'm talking about Africa is OOOOO Saddam was so bad, he killed 10s of thousands. But what about the DHs in Africa, Rwanda, Sudan, Congo, etc. All we ALL do is give more money, yes all of us. I'm not saying go and stomp on ever one. But if the US considers themself now as the worlds Peaceforce, well I hope you get my meaning.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Sep 2005)

Debt is incurred in only one way, when expenditures (all forms) exceed income (all sources). Governments borrow money from investors in the form of Government securities (T-bills, Bonds).

Since governments have the power to create money; and also the power to seize real assets, there is generally no problem in getting investors to accept the validity and good quality of the treasury instruments. As to paying it back with no interest, sorry, but investors do not lend their money for free, If I am going to buy a bond from Ford or the Federal Government, then it is because they promise to repay the principle with an appropriate rate of interest.



			
				Recce41 said:
			
		

> If we included the goverment and we be nude with a barrel.



What Mr Dithers and co have failed to say is not only does the Federal Government owe over $500 billion dollars in secured debt (i.e. Government of Canada Bonds, T-Bills, Canada Savings Bonds etc.), but there are also over $500 billion dollars in unfunded liabilities outstanding as well, in the form of pension payouts for CPP, government and military pensions, OAS, disability pensions etc. In other words, if you think you are entitled to a pension in the future, there is absolutly NO money set aside to pay for it. Pensioners will be pretty cranky when they realize there is no cheque in the mail, so any number of expedients could be used to mask this, almost all bad. If announcing the end of CPP and the cut-off of pension cheques was the worst thing that could happen, bring it on. Massive devaluation of the dollar due to creating money to "pay" the pensioners means high or even hyper inflation, while the cancellation of other government programs to feed the ever growing pension liabilities is another possibility. In short, we are already standing in the open, without even the benefit of a barrel, and watching the storm clouds gathering.....

As for the relative value of Africa vs Iraq, due to various reasons Iraq impacted on the National Interest of many nations, including Canada, wheras Africa does not. Since we do not have infinite resources (and from the previous paragraph, we actually have the very thinnest margin of resources to work with), we must apply what we have to the National Interest first, formost and always, or we will cease to exist.


----------



## 48Highlander (24 Sep 2005)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> What I'm talking about Africa is OOOOO Saddam was so bad, he killed 10s of thousands. But what about the DHs in Africa, Rwanda, Sudan, Congo, etc. All we ALL do is give more money, yes all of us. I'm not saying go and stomp on ever one. But if the US considers themself now as the worlds Peaceforce, well I hope you get my meaning.



The only ones accusing the US of acting like the "worlds Peaceforce" ( actualy, I think it was police-force) are the left-leaning hippie types.  George Bush certainly never claimed it, nor did any government or military official.  So...no, I realy don't get your meaning.  The US acts to protect it's own interests and the interests of it's allies.  Africa has little impact on any of us.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Sep 2005)

I'm with 48th on this one.  The US ardently does NOT want to be the world's peacekeeper or even the world's peacemaker.  Largely for the very reason that you, recce41, cite - money.  They know, what most young left wingers don't and that is that even with the world's largest economy, and the ability to print more of the currency that has become the world's de facto basis of commerce, there is no way that they can afford to act as policemen everywhere.  It just can't happen.  They can't afford to donate the service.  Other countries won't pay them for the service. In fact there isn't enough money in the world for anybody to supply the service everywhere.

The Americans, and every other country of the OECD, need and want stability to allow commerce to occur and their citizens to make money. If their citizens make money they are happy and governments don't have to spend money keeping them happy.  The OECD (membership - http://www.oecd.org/document/58/0,2340,en_2649_201185_1889402_1_1_1_1,00.html) effectively represents all the successful capitalist economies of the world (they are the self-sufficient economies that donate aid in the form of money and services to other countries).  It includes Germany and France and other soi-disant socialist/social democratic countries. 

Even if these countries all contributed their entire disposable economy to the task there still would not be enough money, their people would want to know why the money wasn't buying them knee replacements and the recipients of the services would continue to be both suspicious and resentful of the "assistance".  

The only sure cure is in the form of national "self-discipline".

Lacking that, when idiots take advantage of the lack of order to make life miserable for the rest of the world - any country, group or individual  - that country, group or individual has a clear right to address the idiots.  They can do this by ignoring them (not investing in the area) or if they can't do that, by protecting themselves.  Take action.  Counter the idiots or eliminate the idiots.

A fanatic, of any specie, is an idiot.


----------



## Recce41 (24 Sep 2005)

48th
 You said it, if it doesn't hurt us, just turn our backs. What interest did we have with Iraq? We have our own oil, we don't need any sand, we have Suffield, Camels are a lil poor at pulling a sled. And don't give me the WMD crap. The US gave it to them, for the war against Iran. 
 I think it's living so near 2 Ks away, to the US, has given me a different outlook on Americans.

 I'll tell my Sister in Law shes wrong. After 4 yrs Univ. and 20+ yrs working for the Goverment.


----------



## 48Highlander (24 Sep 2005)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> 48th
> You said it, if it doesn't hurt us, just turn our backs. What interest did we have with Iraq? We have our own oil, we don't need any sand, we have Suffield, Camels are a lil poor at pulling a sled. And don't give me the WMD crap. The US gave it to them, for the war against Iran.



 :

Read through the forums; all these things have been discussed before, and I'm not going to take the thread off topic just to debate with someone who obviously doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.



			
				Recce41 said:
			
		

> I think it's living so near 2 Ks away, to the US, has given me a different outlook on Americans.
> 
> I'll tell my Sister in Law shes wrong. After 4 yrs Univ. and 20+ yrs working for the Goverment.



Awesome.  Hope she takes it well.  Good luck!


----------



## Cloud Cover (24 Sep 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> (ie: where is Carrolyn Parrish from?   ).



Urban Ontario. Big difference from the rest of it.


----------



## Sapper Bloggins (25 Sep 2005)

What I've found to be more disturbing after 9/11 is what followed after that fatal day when Americans adopted a different attitude. Instead of looking outwards and seeking to understand the causes behind what had happened to them, Americans have withdrawn into a delusionary world of self-righteousness and arrogance.
The worst kind of this state, which manifested itself as ' patriotism ' and being exceptional, prevented Americans from carrying out much needed soul-searching and fact finding. Instead of trying to understand the root causes, most Americans accepted the naive conclusion that America was attacked because it was "good, free, economically prosperous, and democratic".

And instead of reaching out to the Muslim world to try to understand the causes of the strong dissent and the anti-American sentiment that caused the attacks, America alienated Muslims worldwide. Rather than encouraging more cultural exchanges and dialogue between America and the Muslim world, Americans opted for xenophobic paranoia. It is clear that the tragedy of black September brought out the worst in America. What happens next is just a consequence.

The Bush administration was quick to exploit the memory of this tragedy to push forward its hidden agenda not only in the Middle East but also in many parts of the Muslim world. Despite America's constant denial of having a hidden agenda or plan to re-map the region, its declared plans reveal the opposite. Bush's neo-conservative expansionist agenda includes Syria, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Sudan. According to Bush's logic, America has to invade all these countries.

This is a dangerous trend, and perhaps we should not be surprised with statements like: "You are either with us or against us." Seems to me just another way of silencing debate and portraying any dissent as unpatriotic. With this statement, the America Empire has made it clear that it sees the world in black and white. There is no compromise, no debate, and no dialogue.
Al Qaida, in its narrow thinking, has also divided the world into two divisions: Dar-al-Islam(realm of peace) and Dar-al-harab(realm of war). Some would argue that Bush's outlook is no different. In his narrow mindedness, he seems _nearly_ as bad as Al Qaida. He divided the world into two distinctive camps: the axes of war and axes of peace. Both Al Qaida and the American administration see the world in the same manner and both bring into play God's name as a justification for their extreme policies. Both believe in out-of-place religious interpretations, and each believes that God is on their side.

In such an atmosphere of anger and hatred, vengeance and darkness, tolerance could no longer survive. But our friends to the south should know one thing: it is not hatred that drives people of the Arab and Muslim world to stand against it. Rather it is its arrogant attitude and its unjust and double standards that make people hate America.

To ease the tension and alleviate the anti-American sentiment, America should stop acting like the bully that cuts into the supermarket line simply because of her size and strength. Many commentators believe that because Bush had lost the war against Al Qaida, he had to turn to Iraq. Hence, it is the policy of vengeance and intolerance that still dictates American foreign policy.

The time is now for the Americans and the Muslim world, to put aside their differences and work together so that they are able to reclaim the greatness of their respective cultures. If the level of tolerance and debate in both cultures continued to deteriorate and if both continued with their inward withdrawal, both will certainly lose everything that they may have stood for: principles and ideals that turned both of them into great civilisations.

I hope that history is not doomed to repeat itself, for we should always remember that great empires are not destroyed by outside forces, but rather by forces within. We only hope that history's lessons are fully understood.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Sep 2005)

> Quote from: Infanteer on September 17, 2005, 11:51:38
> (ie: where is Carrolyn Parrish from?  ).
> 
> 
> Urban Ontario. Big difference from the rest of it.



Very much the case.  Orangeville, Kitchener, Peterborough and Haliburton have a lot more in common with the West than they do with Trawna.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Sep 2005)

The US was attacked and elected to fight back rather than feel guilty and pronate itself before everyone with whom it ever had a policy disagreement, and that is disturbing?

Everything has a "cause".  So what are the "causes" the US should eliminate?  No more nipples on TV?  Return women to second class status?  Stop propping up the regime of the US's preference to allow the adherents of an antagonistic regime-in-waiting take over?  That last one is basically it, isn't it?  "You, Bad America! We have a Grievance! You must eschew your interests and stand aside so that <insert name of political faction here> can seize power and rule the peasants of <insert locality here>."  If social and economic liberty are not the "root causes", then political opportunism and squalid power struggles are pretty much all that are left.

Given a choice of regimes, the US tends to back those which support it.  Gee.  Imagine.  And all the fools continue to prate on about how the regimes supported by the US are immoral and illegitimate, as if the alternative were necessarily moral and legitimate.

What sort of cultural exchange and dialogue would you propose between the US and Islamic fundamentalists that isn't simply a one-way dogma pipeline?

Syria, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Sudan.  All models of international cooperation and humanism.

"With us or against us" was a rhetorical device which managed to incite a few "tolerant" souls to incoherent rage which they still haven't outgrown.  So much for their reason and maturity.  The US hasn't closed its borders and declared war on everyone who is not "with them".

Empires are destroyed by outside forces after the empires weaken themselves from within.  I don't see the US weakening itself much yet, although not for lack of trying in many quarters.


----------



## Sapper Bloggins (25 Sep 2005)

Brad Sallows,
A little light reading for you. Respects. 

http://www.zmag.org/shalomhate.htm

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html


----------



## 48Highlander (25 Sep 2005)

Sapper Bloggins said:
			
		

> Brad Sallows,
> A little light reading for you. Respects.
> 
> http://www.zmag.org/shalomhate.htm
> ...



 :blotto:

You just proved his point perfectly.  Couldn't have done it better myself.


----------



## Sapper Bloggins (25 Sep 2005)

No point has been proven, just a difference of opinion. :blotto:


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Sep 2005)

"The most recent part of that record, which includes U.S. alliances with Iraq to counter Iran and then with Iran and Syria to counter Iraq, illustrates a theme that has been played in Washington for the last 45 years."

That is just high comedy.   Think of what Britain's foreign policy was in Europe for centuries...

[A simple truth: a nation can be either isolationist or non-isolationist.  If the latter, then by definition the nation is going to be sticking its fingers in someone else's pie.]


----------



## Cloud Cover (25 Sep 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "The most recent part of that record, which includes U.S. alliances with Iraq to counter Iran and then with Iran and Syria to counter Iraq, illustrates a theme that has been played in Washington for the last 45 years."
> 
> That is just high comedy.   Think of what Britain's foreign policy was in Europe for centuries...
> 
> [A simple truth: a nation can be either isolationist or non-isolationist.   If the latter, then by definition the nation is going to be sticking its fingers in someone else's pie.]



Too binary- needs further subdivision. I think pie sticking can be pro-active non-isolationism, which the USA is now overtly not. [although perhaps they are covertly]. In my view, the USA of from Sept 2001 forward switched from pro-active non-isolationist to reactive, hostile isolationist,* indeed hyper reactive and in dire need of a massive dose of Ritalin, for it is now certain that any stimuli can set them off. 

I would also disagree that the binary nature of the isolationist/non-isolationist camp applies to all nations. I think it depends on the nature and structure of government, and where the power of foreign policy and military action resides along with the means to execute and retain control of those policy's.   If an elected house can thwart an attempt at war, or override the executive and declare war itself, this would seem to indicate war could only happen when that elected house is willing and able. Where the executive engages in war "mongering" (for lack of a better term) and the elected house simply goes along without questioning all of the assumptions all the way through to the surrender table [as they have every right to do, in the best interest of all of us] then the system is dysfunctional and professional soldiers of today ought to know better than take orders from dysfunctional governments. History probably shows us at least that much.     

* hence, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists." - What a stupid, dangerous, vile and astonishing statement! In my view, if you have to threaten other countries into your camp, then you are setting up camp on a flood plain with high water on the way. The civilized world was already anti-terrorist but fortunately most won't be bullied into war for the sake of something to do in order to claim a victory for CNN to report [ or, for that matter make a victory for CNN] whilst blindly hoping the blip in the insurgencey simply passes into another period of dormancy.   The insurgency probably pre-dates the Westpahlian model of states and it will likely sustain itself well past the existence of some the key states involved in the current matrix- [on either side].   What is different today than perhaps even 40 years ago, is that Muslim states will likely play a key role in suppressing the Islamic insurgency until at least a few generations in the future. The next really big battles will be fought domestically as the insurgents work their way into the fabric of opposing states and systems.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Sep 2005)

American reaction to the 9/11 attacks was a result of "realpolitic" at work. America's allies such as Europe, Japan, and its trading partners like India and China are heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil (interestingly enough, the bulk of American oil imports come from the western hemisphere), so any threat to disruption of the oil flow would create potentialy catastrophic disruptions to the world economy.

A similar situation existed in the last century. The "banana" wars in Central America make little sense if you take the United Fruit Company as warmonger argument seriously, but make a great deal of sense when you realize Cuba, Dominica and Hati, as well as Nicaragua define the eastern and western approaches to the Panama Canal, which was considered key to 19th and early 20th century US trade and Naval strategy.

Since the the Jihadis have expressed a desire to topple the House of Saud and choke off the oil supply, and the Iranians have expressed a desire to attain nuclear weapons in order to dominate the region and control the oil supply, a collision with American interests was inevitable. Since the Iranian desire has been apparent for decades [even the Shah was interested in becoming the regional hegemon], the Americans were interested in supporting Iraq as an economy of force measure, rather than attempt to conduct an invasion in, say 1980.

History has demonstrated that the "realpolitic" approach has failed, or at least led to very undesirable side effects, so the drive to liberate and democratize the region is an alternative strategy, which has the benefit of being potentially self sustaining, and as the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon proved, can also be home grown as well.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Sep 2005)

Proactive or reactive doesn't matter.  One can anticipate and be proactive; one can miss something and be forced to be reactive.  The US was reactive in Afghanistan and proactive in Iraq.

The "binary" point remains: any interference in what is perceived as another's internal affairs, regardless of intentions or means, risks becoming a "root cause" for a grievance.  Whether the aggrieved party is being rational is irrelevant; indeed, it is the irrational aggrieved party which is most likely to initiate conflict.  It is therefore pointless and foolish to pretend "root causes" can all be addressed unless one adopts a posture of inaction.  That leaves foreign affairs as we know it: the exercise of power of any sort in pursuit of national interests carries risk.

What is "dysfunctional government"?  Sticks and stones?


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Sep 2005)

Maj. Baker:

It will never be your turn.  You will just have to adopt the attitude of my old British imperialist forebears.  There was us and there was everybody else. French, Arab or Dayak head hunter, they were all much of a sameness and got treated equally. Most unfortunate that they weren't Brtish - not for want trying though. ;D


----------



## Monsoon (30 Sep 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> After SEP 11 there were celebrations in the street through out the Arab world (*supposedly in Canada too*),


Umm, no (to Canada, that is).



> recriminations on CDN talk shows


Umm, no.



> French conspiracy theories, etc., that all blamed us.


There were as many conspiracy theories circulating in the US, tempting thought it may be to blame the French (who, I admit, take to that sort of thing with greater enthusiasm).



> Tell that to the children on the airplane that were targeted by fanatics


Children were specifically targeted?



> Listen, the Arab world is messed up because of what they have done to themselves, they choose to live in 14 century isolation, blame everyone else, seems to be the mantra.  Get the heck over it!  I choose to stand up to fanatical fucks that target innocent women, children, old men, teachers, doctors, politicians and anyone else that doesn't agree with them.


Watch FOX much?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Sep 2005)

Well there is the weeks "stupidest reply award".....lets see, you KNOW nobody in Canada celebrated?....you KNOW that things were not said on Canadian shows? [ I've seen a couple].... it was the planes that were targeted[ read the question before answering].....and yea,whatever that last one meant...


----------



## Monsoon (30 Sep 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well there is the weeks "stupidest reply award".....lets see, you KNOW nobody in Canada celebrated?....you KNOW that things were not said on Canadian shows? [ I've seen a couple].... it was the planes that were targeted[ read the question before answering].....and yea,whatever that last one meant...


Well, if I've gotten the people I'm arguing against to resort to childish name-calling, I guess my points must have been irrefutable.  Let's go over them again:

I KNOW that there wasn't "celebrating in the streets" in Canada.

I KNOW that whatever "recriminations" appeared in Canadian television represented a radical fringe that was every bit as active on US television.

I KNOW that "tell that to the children on the airplane that were targeted" is a disingenuous attempt to turn away a perfectly legitimate argument by trying to evoke to a "won't somebody please think of the children" response (read the article I was responding to before answering).

I KNOW that the invective-filled rant I was responding to is typical of the sort of b*llsh*t streaming from FOX into the minds of millions of Americans a day.

If you want to find a stupidest reply of the week, I think you should take a closer look at your own.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Sep 2005)

Quote
recriminations on CDN talk shows

THEN Umm, no.
NOW I KNOW that whatever "recriminations" appeared in Canadian television represented a radical fringe that was every bit as active on US television.

Sucking and blowing???

Quote,
I KNOW that "tell that to the children on the airplane that were targeted" is a disingenuous attempt to turn away a perfectly legitimate argument by trying to evoke to a "won't somebody please think of the children" response (read the article I was responding to before answering).

Sorry, you are right. I should have said to try and understand what was written before you reply.
Once again, slowly, were there children on the airplanes [4]that were targetted?


----------



## Monsoon (30 Sep 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> THEN Umm, no.
> NOW I KNOW that whatever "recriminations" appeared in Canadian television represented a radical fringe that was every bit as active on US television.
> Sucking and blowing???


I admit that I may have sacrificed clarity for punchiness in my original response.  It doesn't change the fact that Mr Baker was trying to villianize Canadians (painting us with a very broad, tar-laden brush) for things his own countrymen were doing.


----------



## Recce41 (30 Sep 2005)

Most Americans don't have a real view of the world, They think money buys all. I have 2 muslums in my troop. Both are very good soldiers and have seen the US at work in Saudi. MONEY MONEY. Americans force their views, not suggest.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Sep 2005)

Quote,
_and have seen the US at work in Saudi_

Well then I'm sure they gave examples of their "work", could you please enlighten me as to what the US could possibly buy there that the House of Saud couldn't????


----------



## muskrat89 (30 Sep 2005)

> Most Americans don't have a real view of the world, They think money buys all




Amazing....             "Deliverance, eh"


----------



## 48Highlander (2 Oct 2005)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> Most Americans don't have a real view of the world



 :

Well it's a good thing we Canadians are so much wiser.   Shining examples of genius such as yourself should be held out for the world to see!   Make us proud!


----------



## Acorn (3 Oct 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Those kind of comments get my blood boiling, so here goes, I could give a rat's *** what the Arab street thinks about me, my culture, my country, and here is why.....
> 
> After SEP 11 there were celebrations in the street through out the Arab world (supposedly in Canada too),



Sorry. I was IN the "Arab World" on Sept 11. There was almost no celebration in the streets (mainly confined to the Palestinian areas). Quite the contrary, believe it or not.

What the Arab "Street" thinks about is important. Unless, of course, the actions of the US are exactly what the AQ propagandists have claimed.

Acorn


----------



## TCBF (4 Oct 2005)

"Most Americans don't have a real view of the world, They think money buys all. I have 2 muslums in my troop. Both are very good soldiers and have seen the US at work in Saudi. MONEY MONEY. Americans force their views, not suggest."

- Not a very balanced view when talking about an entire nationality.  If you substituted 'Somalis', 'Jamaicans" or 'Sri Lankans" for Americans in your statement, a lot of the knee-jerk hair-trigger liberalists on this site would cry "Racism!" and let loose the dogs of disgust.

Tom


----------



## Recce41 (6 Oct 2005)

48th
 I from just 2 miles from the US, have served with US forces and most don't understand the rest of the world as other countries, do. Yes we have our own bubble people (Toronto) HAHA. As for your 24 yrs of life, you must have seen it all.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Oct 2005)

I dunno recce41.  48th doesn't seem far off the mark to me.

I've lived in the States.  I've worked in the States for longer.  I've lived in or done business in every province in Canada, including Quebec.  I've visited Europe numerous times, I've worked with Europeans, I've worked in Europe, I was born there and I am six years older than you.

On the other hand there are a bunch of youngsters on this site that regularly run rings around me.

I don't know what any of that means.

Cheers Warrant.


----------



## 48Highlander (7 Oct 2005)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> 48th
> I from just 2 miles from the US, have served with US forces and most don't understand the rest of the world as other countries, do. Yes we have our own bubble people (Toronto) HAHA. As for your 24 yrs of life, you must have seen it all.



You know, being old is no excuse for mindless hatred of others.  I don't particulary care if youre 12 or 120, making discriminatory or offensive statements based on race, sex, religion, or ethnic origin, is not acceptable.

For the record I've worked with Yanks on many occasions, including ones from the southern states (yes, the stereotypical hicks).  While some may seem slow at first, there's very little difference between them and us.  Don't let the accent fool you.


----------



## Recce41 (7 Oct 2005)

Kirkhill
 Old farts are here for one thing. To Get older and die. I have a lot of yng soldiers getting in that are so smart their stupid. They have a degree or two but cannot use a damn screwdriver. 
 I'm not knocking them all, I have a history one.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Oct 2005)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> I'm not knocking them all, I have a history one.


Can you pass on that hi.story?


----------



## Recce41 (7 Oct 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Can you pass on that hi.story?


? George?


----------



## George Wallace (7 Oct 2005)

It's Friday night, Dave, and I thought you had a story to tell?     ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Oct 2005)

> Old farts are here for one thing. To Get older and die.



I am hoping to postpone that for a while. I am still finding pleasure in being able to create my own farts.....development arrested at 5 years old ;D



> I have a lot of yng soldiers getting in that are so smart their stupid. They have a degree or two but cannot use a darn screwdriver.



I've met a couple of them along the way too.

Cheers.


----------

