The Economics of American Super Imperialism

[Gdjjr]

No ... I remember this kind of rhetoric all the years of my life ... you're young still, you'll see what I mean later in life ...

I'm in year number 72- and, what you said wasn't in the article which is what I referred to when I said I didn't "see that"- which apparently and conveniently went over your head- that said- your ignorance is born of your arrogance. Ignorance can't be helped we're all born ignorant- now, I may be uninformed, on some things, but ignorant I'm not. Some people, (look in the mirror), work diligently to look like something they aren't and it makes them arrogant with unfounded lies to themselves making them look ignorant. Again, look in the mirror- not to mention- I seriously doubt you remember all the years of anything in your life- we remember snap shots. Period. You may have heard it more than once, I NEVER heard it- that doesn't make me ignorant. If anything it would be uninformed, but, as my many posts attest, I ain't uninformed.

This article, had you (and the other clowns) bothered yourself with reading, explains a lot, and most people are uninformed about the who, why and how of anything, never mind geopolitical- you and the clowns here want to pretend, in your blissful arrogance, you know all there is to know about everything there is to know anything about and you don't even know what the questions are- that's what teenagers do.

Come back and have a conversation when you've read the article.

 

[Unkotare]

I didn't watch the video's I just read the transcript

How the US Makes Countries Pay for Its Wars

I've stated in numerous threads the US is building an Empire and colonizing the world (Military bases are just small colonies) this article touches on that-

The US is not an empire.

 

[Gdjjr]

The US is not an empire.

LOL- right. Because you say so.

Empire:
a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority especially : one having an emperor as chief of state

(2) : the territory of such a political unit
b : something resembling a political empire especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control

2 : imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion

 

[Unkotare]

The US is not an empire.

LOL- right. Because you say so.

Empire:
a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority especially : one having an emperor as chief of state

(2) : the territory of such a political unit
b : something resembling a political empire especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control

2 : imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion

By your own definition, the US is not an empire.

 

[Gdjjr]

By your own definition, the US is not an empire.

Get your wife to teach you to read.
Then, read the article and discuss it- if you can wrap your narrow, shallow mind around the concept that you're sometimes correct, often incorrect and knowledge isn't biased in its origin maybe we can have a discussion- m a y b e.
In case YOU hadn't noticed the article isn't about me, or an empire, per se', as much as how we've gotten to where we are and what it takes to stay on top-
The US is *acting* in an imperialist manner- aka Empire. That your narrow, shallow minded tripe can't grasp the concept isn't surprising- maybe your wife can explain to you- I don't have the patience or the desire and have no investment in your arrogance -
The information is there for the taking. Do what you will with it.

 

[Unkotare]

By your own definition, the US is not an empire.

Get your wife to teach you to read.
...

All set.

The US is not an empire.

 

[ReinyDays]

I'm in year number 72- and, what you said wasn't in the article which is what I referred to when I said I didn't "see that"- which apparently and conveniently went over your head- that said- your ignorance is born of your arrogance. Ignorance can't be helped we're all born ignorant- now, I may be uninformed, on some things, but ignorant I'm not. Some people, (look in the mirror), work diligently to look like something they aren't and it makes them arrogant with unfounded lies to themselves making them look ignorant. Again, look in the mirror- not to mention- I seriously doubt you remember all the years of anything in your life- we remember snap shots. Period. You may have heard it more than once, I NEVER heard it- that doesn't make me ignorant. If anything it would be uninformed, but, as my many posts attest, I ain't uninformed.

This article, had you (and the other clowns) bothered yourself with reading, explains a lot, and most people are uninformed about the who, why and how of anything, never mind geopolitical- you and the clowns here want to pretend, in your blissful arrogance, you know all there is to know about everything there is to know anything about and you don't even know what the questions are- that's what teenagers do.

Come back and have a conversation when you've read the article.

My ... that's mature ...

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

I recommend this thoughtful, if imperfect, historical article on the American “Empire of Liberty” — Jefferson’s term — and how the ideas of imperialism and liberty and the exercise of state power have evolved in our country:

Is America an Empire?

America’s zeal for anti-imperialist projects abroad has created a new imperialism of its own that is expansive and provocative of conflict.

nationalinterest.org

 

[Gdjjr]

My ... that's mature ...

As is your reaction.

 

[Gdjjr]

I recommend this thoughtful, if imperfect, historical article on the American “Empire of Liberty” — Jefferson’s term — and how the ideas of imperialism and liberty and the exercise of state power have evolved in our country:

Is America an Empire?

America’s zeal for anti-imperialist projects abroad has created a new imperialism of its own that is expansive and provocative of conflict.

nationalinterest.org

That's a good article- the one I posted, that no one wants to throuble them selves to read, adds financial explanation to the link you posted. But, apparently the commenters know all there is to know about everything there is to know about everything and can't imagine opening their narrow minds to anything new- knowledge, it seems to many, is static- no matter the fact that knowledge, undeniably, evolves rendering it dynamic. Too deep for many to grasp, especially narrow and shallow minded know it alls-


From the link-

Those who emphasize the anti-imperialism of the U.S. record in foreign policy especially fail to take adequate account of the phenomenon whereby the United States not only defeated and dismantled adversary empires but also acquired, in the act of defeating them, many of the characteristics once deemed obnoxious in these enemies—powerful standing military establishments, a pervasive apparatus for spying and surveillance, a propensity to rely on force as a preferred instrument of policy, and a disdain for popular opinion or legislative control in matters of force.

As George Washington observed in his Farewell Address, “Overgrown military establishments” are “inauspicious to liberty” under any form of government and “are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.” Over the past quarter century, the overgrown military establishment and national-security apparatus maintained by the United States has become threatening to domestic liberty and international freedom—that is, to both the “liberties of individuals” and “the liberties of states.”
................

What, then, is the relation between American empire and the liberal tradition? The national-security elite sees them in a tight alliance; I see them standing increasingly in mortal contradiction. The empire, I contend, threatens liberty, despite having been built on its foundation, recalling the history and predicament of Republican Rome. “The history of Roman historiography,” notes J. G. A. Pocock, is the history of “the problem of libertas et imperium, in which liberty is perceived as accumulating an empire by which it is itself threatened.” My argument is that this has become the central problem of American history, if not yet perhaps of American historiography. This was so even before the age of Trump; it seems a clear and present danger now.



THE EXISTENCE of this phenomenon in the United States should occasion no real surprise. It had been prophesied. The explanation was developed brilliantly in Joseph Schumpeter’s “The Sociology of Imperialisms.” Drafted in 1918 in dire and tragic circumstances, on the eve of the collapse of his homeland, Austria-Hungary, Schumpeter supposed capitalism to be bereft of the imperialistic urge and treated imperialism as an “atavism” representing precapitalist forces that had survived into the bourgeois epoch. Across the ages, the key phenomenon was that the war machine, “created by wars that required it, . . . now created the wars it required.” Schumpeter wrote that of ancient Egyptian imperialism, but he applied the insight widely. Schumpeter spoke of the Roman policy

*** “which pretends to aspire to peace but unerringly generates war, the policy of continual preparation for war, the policy of meddlesome interventionism. There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome’s allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive such an interest—why, then it was the national honor that had been insulted. The fight was always invested with the aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbors, always fighting for a breathing space. The whole world was pervaded by a host of enemies.” ***
.............

Never, said Jefferson, had so much false arithmetic been deployed as in the calculation favoring the benefits of war and preparedness. That standing forces played a critical role in perpetuating Europe’s war system was widely credited in the early United States, whose thinkers explored the question systematically. A key purpose of the federal constitution is that it would enable America to largely dispense with the engines of despotism—i.e., standing armies—that had been the ruin of liberty in the old world. This danger formed the central justification for the union in the early numbers of The Federalist. Insight into this security problem was the weighty substratum on which the federal government was built.
...............

In his famous oration of July 4, 1821, when Secretary of State John Quincy Adams warned against going abroad in search of monsters to destroy, he prophesied that were America to enlist “under other banners than her own . . . the fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.” In Adams’s ornate telling of the consequences, “The frontlet upon her brow would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but instead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power.”