Should the U.S.A. have conqured the world?

[Member2019]

What part of the phrase "Manifest Destiny" did you miss?

Not entirely true.The USA began as a smallish group of 13 states and slowly absorbed much of the rest of the continent-a sort of Empire accomplished by supplanting the original inhabitants.Look at how Texas became part of the Union.

What part of the phrase 'Manifest Destiny" did you not see in my original post? Furthermore, a lot of the territory was always disputed with either Britain or Spain (although I fully agree Mexico did get the shaft when the US decided to assert its decision).

 

[Member2019]

Ummm, do you actually track currency exchange?

Pansy OPEC collected hell a lot dollars when oil was $140 during Bush period. Russia and Iran did that too.

That had far more to do speculation than currency exchanges. Yes, it influenced the price of oil as much as 25%, but not the 150% that resulted!

When people blame one President for all the misfortunes, they deserve the issues that continue on-ward. That was the case for people who blame[d] only Clinton. It is yet more of the case for those who blame only W.

 

[hedonis]

No one will ever conquer the world. Look at everyone who has tried.

 

[marquis2]

In fact the fear was in 1945 whether or not the USSR would stop its marcg westward.America didn't in fact have the bomb,it only had 3,one was for testing and the other two were dropped on Japan.
Also, although the bomb was made at Los Alamos it was a joint effort between the US and the UK which had done a lot of the preliminary work in Manchester.

 

[titsrock]

I think we should've as long as we installed Kang and Kodos to be overseers to the world and they could enslave everybody from Britain to Bolivia.

 

[ChefChiTown]

No one will ever conquer the world. Look at everyone who has tried.

Eww, I don't want to look at them. They're probably all dead by now.

 

[maildude]

The States presently have the most advanced military in the world. And look at the problems they are having. Plus, at the end of WW2 they were almost out of money. The nuclear solution reached by Truman was mostly due to this. There just isn't enough money around for any country to control the world. And with this economy, who would want to?

 

[Member2019]

American "Imperialism"

The States presently have the most advanced military in the world. And look at the problems they are having. Plus, at the end of WW2 they were almost out of money. The nuclear solution reached by Truman was mostly due to this. There just isn't enough money around for any country to control the world. And with this economy, who would want to?

The continuing US strategy since it's first "Imperalist" tendencies has been to:

1. Educate the People, First and Foremost (even if using US values/views)

This was first shown when the US took over former Spanish colonies at the end of the 19th century. The Spanish preferred to leave them "dumb" so they are less likely to revolt. The US, although some actions were questionable (like in the Philippines), actually built schools and drastically increased the literacy rate.

2. Install a Democratically Elected Republic, but leave traditions (even if different than the US)

This is our values being pressed upon other nations as building a nation 'least likely to war again.' It's not perfect, but works well. And unlike other nations, the US actually manages to preserve traditions.

The US has done this over and over, even with the "problematic" Japanese system. Unlike many other European nations, the US actually doesn't "cut off the head" of a conquored nation's sole and traditions. E.g., we left the Japanese emperor in place, but made him subject to a US military governor, then their civilian, elected leaders. It wasn't that original, but worked well for the British people, so we adopted a variant.

Iraq is proving a challenge. A huge issue for Iraq is that their security forces, as well as insurgents, are not brave and do not want to "fight for it." It's hard to build a "proud nation" when their own citizens don't want to fight for freedom. But it's slowly changing, it may take decades.

3. Build a Free Market Economy (often with initial, social projects)

This is the epitome of and stark contrast between East v. West Germany post-WWII. Get people working and productive. It's extremely important.

4. Accept as a Peer Nation

Lastly, you can not berate or dominate a nation into getting past the war they just lost. You have to accept them as a peer, of equal standing. If there is absolutely one thing I absolute hate about the French and their history, they utterly work on "revenge" and "restitution" as well as "we are your masters now (or again in the case of regained colonies)." Thank God since the Suez Incident, they reduced their military so they cannot any more.

Americans aren't perfect, but that is our "Imperialism," like it or not.

 

[titsrock]

Americans aren't perfect, but that is our "Imperialism," like it or not.

We haven't done anything of this. Where's the "free market" in Japan?

 

[ballzano]

The USA already did, in a cultural way, everyone except the middle east is like the US, But they're getting there dispite their religion

 

[Member2019]

We haven't done anything of this. Where's the "free market" in Japan?

The term "Free Market" should be taking liberally as it does not always match the US system. South Korea is also a great example.

Maybe I should have stated "encourages." Many systems were partially in-place before the US was involved. But for those that were not, or radically different, the US changed much of it as necessary.

It's kinda like my comment on education. Some citizenships were already well educated. In fact, one of LBJ's chronic issues with Vietnam was the literacy rate, and his big driver to get the North Vietnamese to "let me build schools instead of bombs!"

 

[titsrock]

The term "Free Market" should be taking liberally as it does not always match the US system. South Korea is also a great example.

Maybe I should have stated "encourages."

Prof, you probably should've said we did nothing and left it at that. Wouldn't you agree that Japan's present system of government-backed oligopolies does not *jive* with American Free Market Capitalism? Did we install or encourage "free markets" but they evolved their economy in a different direction and we just looked the other way? How do we *square* Japan's socialism? I was under the impression from previous threads that socialism and free markets do not exist:dunno:

I don't think there is a singular blueprint for American Imperialism. Different administrations enact different policies.

 

[YMIHERE]

It would be a disaster if the USA conquered the world. The USA needs an enemy to survive. After the fall of the USSR, America did not know who to fear and loath other then their fellow Americas with different political or sexual orientations. Bush tried to drum up a problem with China, but the perfect enemy to hate attacked us first. The terrorist enemy should last for a millennium so we are safe from enemy envy.

 

[meesterperfect]

the us military was pretty much spent by 1945.
it would have been another 10 years to maybe take russia.
so no.
by 45 the people of the world had enough of war, and wanted to move on.

:hatsoff: to that generation.

 

[Member2019]

It would be a disaster if the USA conquered the world. The USA needs an enemy to survive. After the fall of the USSR, America did not know who to fear and loath other then their fellow Americas with different political or sexual orientations. Bush tried to drum up a problem with China, but the perfect enemy to hate attacked us first. The terrorist enemy should last for a millennium so we are safe from enemy envy.

My God, where do you get this junk? You are so anti-W. and anti-US it's amazing. Will you also be anti-Obama when he continues the same policies? Or are you just a mainstream US media lover that believes whatever they say? E.g., W. increases funding of education, they call it a cut. Etc...

The US has had a serious problem with China's artificial prevention of letting their currency deflate. The Clinton administration long argued "consumer power" and W., let alone a lot of us American Libertarian-Capitalists, wanted an end to that (along with blantant IP theft -- and I'm not talking the MPAA/RIAA, but original engineering works like those of my employers, among others). That was hardly "looking for a war."

Oh the irony! Clinton prevented IP theft on AIDS drugs, but didn't do a damn thing about China. W. opened up the IP on AIDS drugs for Africa, and then takes a harder line on IP with China. Sorry, but your views are pretty fucked up and 180 from the reality. But that's what you get for being a W. hater without following the logic.

It's a policy of Clinton's that was fatally flawed and W., among others, saw a serious problem in the near-future on. I love how people like yourself blame W. for our consumer economy, then turn around and spew this BS when W. tried to reverse the folly of what was clearly an issue before his administration (including inheriting a recession and corresponding deficit in 2001).

Prof, you probably should've said we did nothing and left it at that. Wouldn't you agree that Japan's present system of government-backed oligopolies does not *jive* with American Free Market Capitalism? Did we install or encourage "free markets" but they evolved their economy in a different direction and we just looked the other way?

Okay, let me rephrase further, a strong economy based on supply and demand. In other words, one that prevents mandatory socialistic tendencies and promotes individual and association-by-choice (not force) groups. That was the point.

How do we *square* Japan's socialism? I was under the impression from previous threads that socialism and free markets do not exist

Japan does not have a socialist system. A socialist system requires forced membership. Japan has a public good system, big difference. People choose to associate with groups for group rights.

It's the difference between "common good" and "communism," big difference.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Boy some big time spin in this thread lol.
To assert that the US has been a benevolent imperial power in most cases is absurd.Lets take what was done in Cuba before the Castro revolution,they had a dictator named Batista who allowed rampant american expolitation of his people.Or Nicaragua who had the dictator Samoza before Daniel Ortega came to power and then we tried to get rid of Ortega with that whole contra thing.Or Panama who had Noriega who we liked for quite some time till we decided he had to go and invaded.Or Chile where in the 60s they democratically elected a socialist named Allende who then the CIA assasinated him.Or Iran where we backed the Shah who caused a revolution by trying to force his people to become more western.Or vietnam where we supported a string of corrupt governments.We have little cared most of the time about what was done to and for the people of most countries of the world as long as they did our bidding.Now is that different than other countries who were powerfull at any given time,absolutely not.But it also means we are not some new better breed of imperial power eithier.You know the brits thought they were doing good when they were the world power of the world also,and were just bringing civilization to the heathens whether they wanted it or not.Of course eventually the brits lost their grip on such places as India who decided they had been "helped" quite enough.

 

[Member2019]

Don't say what I did not, maintain the CONTEXT of what I said ...

Boy some big time spin in this thread lol.To assert that the US has been a benevolent imperial power in most cases is absurd.

I never said that. In fact, I said the US has been a folly in its attempts, largely because of other factors. However, compared to "European Imperialism," I'll take the US any day.

That was my context, not anything "benevolent." Please show me where I said such or even hinted?

Lets take what was done in Cuba before the Castro revolution,they had a dictator named Batista who allowed rampant american expolitation of his people.

Unfortunately, Castro is not any better. Not my view, but most people in South America as well. He replaced one with another. Yes, the US exploited Cuba. Castro did the same to his people as well.

Chavez is another, great example. Blaming the US only goes so far. When you erect yourself eternal leader, deny civil liberties and shut down any aspect of independent thought or enterprise, your people like it no more.

Again, not just my view. Not many other South American nations are moving that route, and approval ratings for Chavez are no better than W. from with South American viewpoint, and Castro is -- by far -- the worse for his carnage.

Or Nicaragua who had the dictator Samoza before Daniel Ortega came to power and then we tried to get rid of Ortega with that whole contra thing.

And the communist would have been better?

I don't deny the US is a chronic fuck-up at times, especially in the Americas where TR started a chronic self-interest campaign that took from the Spanards and didn't improve their self-governence. My point was that at least we didn't beat them into dumb subjects like the Spanish.

Or Panama who had Noriega who we liked for quite some time till we decided he had to go and invaded. Or Chile where in the 60s they democratically elected a socialist named Allende who then the CIA assasinated him.

Which is why the Ford administration made it illegal to assassinate any ruler. The days of JFK and LBJ started this, Nixon played it badly after that. It's why the US no longer pulls that level of interference since Ford and Carter, although we still have some things to answer for.

Or Iran where we backed the Shah who caused a revolution by trying to force his people to become more western.

Actually, most Iranians prefer western society and the "minority" is now in control. I don't agree with our policy with the Shah, but

Give Reagan and post-Reagan some credit, we stopped the CIA from being as stupid as they were prior. There was some "clean-up" at times, and sometimes that made it worse, but the US has learned that unless you get UN approval -- which is peer-review -- it's hard to get anything that works in the people's interest.

In fact, a lot of it was the result of George H. W. Bush taking over the CIA and "cleaning things up." He was a great man, both in war and in peace. People forget the honor he actually instilled into the CIA.

The CIA and FBI have a lot to answer for prior to the early to mid-'70s from the late '50s on-ward. I lay a lot of that at various footsteps, both executive and non-executive. I personally think JFK was an enigma, and wish he wasn't shot so he could account for and could see the errors of his many decisions, sometimes indirect, but many also direct.

Or vietnam where we supported a string of corrupt governments.

Was North Vietnam any better? On the level of atrocities, the NVA and, even worse, VC take the cake.

No offense, as much as I agree the US has "fucked up," you're not doing much better with your "alternatives" here.

We have little cared most of the time about what was done to and for the people of most countries of the world as long as they did our bidding.Now is that different than other countries who were powerfull at any given time,absolutely not.But it also means we are not some new better breed of imperial power eithier.You know the brits thought they were doing good when they were the world power of the world also,and were just bringing civilization to the heathens whether they wanted it or not.Of course eventually the brits lost their grip on such places as India who decided they had been "helped" quite enough.

Sorry, that's just bullshit. We've fucked up, badly. We've had our special interests, true. But if you think the US is "more evil" that both European Imperialism as well as the "alternatives" offered, sometimes the US just tries to "make do" with what it's got. And don't blame me. I wish we'd just pull back to the Americas, period.

But compared to the "alternatives," again, you're not offering much but atrocity and, in several cases, genocide. A lot of that was already in-place before the US.

Whether it was French Re-colonization or different factions in-fighting and the US just trying to end the genocide.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Re: Don't say what I did not, maintain the CONTEXT of what I said ...

The continuing US strategy since it's first "Imperalist" tendencies has been to:

1. Educate the People, First and Foremost (even if using US values/views)

This was first shown when the US took over former Spanish colonies at the end of the 19th century. The Spanish preferred to leave them "dumb" so they are less likely to revolt. The US, although some actions were questionable (like in the Philippines), actually built schools and drastically increased the literacy rate.

2. Install a Democratically Elected Republic, but leave traditions (even if different than the US)

This is our values being pressed upon other nations as building a nation 'least likely to war again.' It's not perfect, but works well. And unlike other nations, the US actually manages to preserve traditions.

The US has done this over and over, even with the "problematic" Japanese system. Unlike many other European nations, the US actually doesn't "cut off the head" of a conquored nation's sole and traditions. E.g., we left the Japanese emperor in place, but made him subject to a US military governor, then their civilian, elected leaders. It wasn't that original, but worked well for the British people, so we adopted a variant.

Iraq is proving a challenge. A huge issue for Iraq is that their security forces, as well as insurgents, are not brave and do not want to "fight for it." It's hard to build a "proud nation" when their own citizens don't want to fight for freedom. But it's slowly changing, it may take decades.

3. Build a Free Market Economy (often with initial, social projects)

This is the epitome of and stark contrast between East v. West Germany post-WWII. Get people working and productive. It's extremely important.

4. Accept as a Peer Nation

Lastly, you can not berate or dominate a nation into getting past the war they just lost. You have to accept them as a peer, of equal standing. If there is absolutely one thing I absolute hate about the French and their history, they utterly work on "revenge" and "restitution" as well as "we are your masters now (or again in the case of regained colonies)." Thank God since the Suez Incident, they reduced their military so they cannot any more.

Americans aren't perfect, but that is our "Imperialism," like it or not.

I never said that. In fact, I said the US has been a folly in its attempts, largely because of other factors. However, compared to "European Imperialism," I'll take the US any day.

That was my context, not anything "benevolent." Please show me where I said such or even hinted?

Unfortunately, Castro is not any better. Not my view, but most people in South America as well. He replaced one with another. Yes, the US exploited Cuba. Castro did the same to his people as well.

Chavez is another, great example. Blaming the US only goes so far. When you erect yourself eternal leader, deny civil liberties and shut down any aspect of independent thought or enterprise, your people like it no more.

Again, not just my view. Not many other South American nations are moving that route, and approval ratings for Chavez are no better than W. from with South American viewpoint, and Castro is -- by far -- the worse for his carnage.

And the communist would have been better?

I don't deny the US is a chronic fuck-up at times, especially in the Americas where TR started a chronic self-interest campaign that took from the Spanards and didn't improve their self-governence. My point was that at least we didn't beat them into dumb subjects like the Spanish.

Which is why the Ford administration made it illegal to assassinate any ruler. The days of JFK and LBJ started this, Nixon played it badly after that. It's why the US no longer pulls that level of interference since Ford and Carter, although we still have some things to answer for.

Actually, most Iranians prefer western society and the "minority" is now in control. I don't agree with our policy with the Shah, but

Give Reagan and post-Reagan some credit, we stopped the CIA from being as stupid as they were prior. There was some "clean-up" at times, and sometimes that made it worse, but the US has learned that unless you get UN approval -- which is peer-review -- it's hard to get anything that works in the people's interest.

In fact, a lot of it was the result of George H. W. Bush taking over the CIA and "cleaning things up." He was a great man, both in war and in peace. People forget the honor he actually instilled into the CIA.

The CIA and FBI have a lot to answer for prior to the early to mid-'70s from the late '50s on-ward. I lay a lot of that at various footsteps, both executive and non-executive. I personally think JFK was an enigma, and wish he wasn't shot so he could account for and could see the errors of his many decisions, sometimes indirect, but many also direct.

Was North Vietnam any better? On the level of atrocities, the NVA and, even worse, VC take the cake.

No offense, as much as I agree the US has "fucked up," you're not doing much better with your "alternatives" here.

Sorry, that's just bullshit. We've fucked up, badly. We've had our special interests, true. But if you think the US is "more evil" that both European Imperialism as well as the "alternatives" offered, sometimes the US just tries to "make do" with what it's got. And don't blame me. I wish we'd just pull back to the Americas, period.

But compared to the "alternatives," again, you're not offering much but atrocity and, in several cases, genocide. A lot of that was already in-place before the US.

Whether it was French Re-colonization or different factions in-fighting and the US just trying to end the genocide.

First I think any reading of the 1st post above shows an assertion that the US is somehow more benevolent as an imperalist power.Again back to cuba before the revolution the literacy rate was below 10%,by the 70s it was over 90% due to to Fidels policys.And I will unabashedly say I think Fidel was one of the great men of the last century.The difference in the lives of the overwhelming majority of cubans after the revolution is extremely stark for the better.Has he been repressive of dissent at times and imperfect yes but lets not forget he was also under constant pressure and threat of invasion by the most powerfull country on earth just 90 miles to his north (the US).Given that, the measures taken to protect the regime seem very reasonable IMO.None of those country's I mentioned in my post were democratic and we were just fine with that also,just as we were fine with Kuwait being the non democratic explotive of foreign workers regime they were when we defended them in the 1st gulf war and let them remain so with no even rhetoric they should reform.
While no one or govt is perfect I am throughly convinced that home grown leaders such as Castro,Ho Chi Minh,Chavez etc etc etc are very much preferable to foreign imperalist installed govt's.In short the right people prevailed in Cuba,vietnam,venezuala,etc,etc etc.
And you mentioned Obama and if people like me who voted for him would be willing to be critical,well I for one definately am.His latest pronouncement on Afghanistan and the sending possibly of 25,000 more troops is pure folly IMO.We have forgoten the lessons of our own experience in Vietnam and also the russians experince in afghanistan which has been characterized as the the russians vietnam.We will end up leaving Afgahanistan and Iraq for that matter with both of those military insertions seen as dismal failures and mistakes.The lesson we should have learned is that in the later 20th and the 21st century all the military spending and might in the world will never be able to acheive the kind of results we are trying to achieve.The people of those countries (and we are not operating with their hopes and aspirations in mind) will just out wait us as they did in vietnam and as the afghanis did to the russians.They know the foreigners will leave eventually and they will then prevail and decide their own fates.Its too bad we are so often and have been on the wrong side of peoples desire for freedom and desire to be independant of foreign imperalism.And I got news for ya they see zero difference in who the imperalist power exploiting them is as I said before.They will fight american, russian or whoever it is that tries to impose such.

 

[Legzman]

why not conquer the world? We already police it and force our laws and social standards on everyone else

 

[BlueBalls]

why not conquer the world? We already police it and force our laws and social standards on everyone else

Yeah, because that always works.................:eek: