Not in the traditional definition of the term, but it is economically. One proof of this is the phrase of
"Big Stick Diplomacy"
to describe how the US use to force other countries to trade with them, or other economic related activities, even when they really didn't want to. Though, I suppose this could also be used as an example of political imperialism as well. Later the US just replaced their leaders with ones who were more agreeable in many cases if all else failed. i.e. Much of the Middle-East.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:26 pm
Spanish-American War
Iraq
Afghanistan
The bombings of various central American states from the 1950s-1970s.
hillbillyatheist Forum Master
Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 10797
Location: oklahoma
Posted:
Thu Dec 28, 2006 3:34 pm
unprovoked war on the confederate states of america, stealing land from mexico, stealing land from the indians, invading iraq, installing the "shaw" (however you spell it) in iran, installing puppet government in africa, etc,
not to mention our government bribing nations, sanctioning them, or even assassinating country leaders, (like the US government did in iran when they installed the shaw)
I have to say yeah the US Government is imperialistic.
I am not going to say that our government is purely a force of evil, but we can't deny the crimes committed by our government either.
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:33 pm
hillbillyatheist wrote:
unprovoked war on the confederate states of america, stealing land from mexico, stealing land from the indians, invading iraq, installing the "shaw" (however you spell it) in iran, installing puppet government in africa, etc,
not to mention our government bribing nations, sanctioning them, or even assassinating country leaders, (like the US government did in iran when they installed the shaw)
I have to say yeah the US Government is imperialistic.
I am not going to say that our government is purely a force of evil, but we can't deny the crimes committed by our government either.
And all of it done in the name of freedom and the people of America and, more often than not, with the approval of the general public as well. Though, much of the time this approval is gained through deception and outright lies. i.e. Iraq, at first, using the fear from 9/11. There are some on here who don't see anything wrong with it either.
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:22 am
hillbillyatheist wrote:
unprovoked war on the confederate states of america, stealing land from mexico,
So you support the US states seceding from the US but not the states seceding from Mexico then asking to join the union?
hillbillyatheist wrote:
stealing land from the indians
What about an argument that the settlers should be considered another tribe? Does race matter? The first one there wins?
hillbillyatheist wrote:
invading iraq, installing the "shaw" (however you spell it) in iran, installing puppet government in africa, etc,
Are you against supporting a group of oppressed people in a country when the oppressors have enough military power not to be toppled and support from allies in other oppressive countries? Was France a bad guy for helping US in the American revolution?
hillbillyatheist wrote:
not to mention our government bribing nations, sanctioning them, or even assassinating country leaders, (like the US government did in iran when they installed the shaw)
I have to say yeah the US Government is imperialistic.
I am not going to say that our government is purely a force of evil, but we can't deny the crimes committed by our government either.
We have different definitions of evil and criminality. I would support regime change in Iran for example. I would consider such efforts good not evil. I also do not recognize any authority that could legitimately declare such action a crime.
hillbillyatheist Forum Master
Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 10797
Location: oklahoma
Posted:
Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:12 am
Saitou wrote:
hillbillyatheist wrote:
unprovoked war on the confederate states of america, stealing land from mexico,
So you support the US states seceding from the US but not the states seceding from Mexico then asking to join the union?
it is my understanding that aside from texas, we took the southwest from mexico. am I mistaken on this?
Quote:
hillbillyatheist wrote:
stealing land from the indians
What about an argument that the settlers should be considered another tribe? Does race matter? The first one there wins?
the first ones here was the indians. you cannot deny the crimes done against them, the small pox infested blankets given to children, the driving indians off their land into reservations, breaking treaty after treaty, etc. come on now, you don't even have a case on this one. face it. the US government really screwed the indians over, big time.
Quote:
hillbillyatheist wrote:
invading iraq, installing the "shaw" (however you spell it) in iran, installing puppet government in africa, etc,
Are you against supporting a group of oppressed people in a country when the oppressors have enough military power not to be toppled and support from allies in other oppressive countries? Was France a bad guy for helping US in the American revolution?
iran voted in a democratic government who nationalized their oil, which the US felt was against our financial interests, so we took down the democratically elected government and replaced it with a military dictatorship (the shaw ~ since overthrown by the islamic nutters, back in the 70's) oh and btw, guess who helped put saddam hussein in power.
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:54 am
hillbillyatheist wrote:
the first ones here was the indians. you cannot deny the crimes done against them, the small pox infested blankets given to children, the driving indians off their land into reservations, breaking treaty after treaty, etc. come on now, you don't even have a case on this one. face it. the US government really screwed the indians over, big time.
But hey, they weren't doing anything with the land. They snooze, they lose.
Quote:
iran voted in a democratic government who nationalized their oil, which the US felt was against our financial interests, so we took down the democratically elected government and replaced it with a military dictatorship (the shaw ~ since overthrown by the islamic nutters, back in the 70's) oh and btw, guess who helped put saddam hussein in power.
Exactly. This is not the first time that the American government has done something like this that has later come back to bite them in the ass. Its one of the main reasons why there is so much hatred of America in the Middle-East now.
He is using the excuse of "good Intentions" to justify these imperialistic actions, which in and of themselves are just lies to begin with as well. We all know what the road to hell is paved with.
CedrickStanton Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 11, 2005
Posts: 827
Posted:
Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:56 am
Saitou wrote:
hillbillyatheist wrote:
unprovoked war on the confederate states of america, stealing land from mexico,
So you support the US states seceding from the US but not the states seceding from Mexico then asking to join the union?.
That's a big fat straw man right there, Saitou. Texas really only "asked" to join the USA when it was clear they'd be reconquered by Mexico on their own, and the USA wouldn't come to their aid unless they joined up. California did not want to join the USA, the Native American held lands were not consulted on the issue, and even after the Mexico-USA war, the territory of Deseret desired to be an independent state.
--Cedrick
CedrickStanton Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 11, 2005
Posts: 827
Posted:
Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:07 am
hillbillyatheist wrote:
unprovoked war on the confederate states of america, stealing land from mexico, stealing land from the indians, invading iraq, installing the "shaw" (however you spell it) in iran, installing puppet government in africa, etc,
It's the Shah of Iran. And the USA didn't install him. In fact, the notion that the USA *could have* installed him is utterly ridiculous if you understand what it means to be a Shah. His claim to rulership predated the existence of the United States.
Now, the USA and UK did back a coup in Iran which resulted in the Shah being reinstated to power after a brief exile. However, the issue is a big clouded here because the democratically elected government was acting lawlessly, and ignoring the Constitution of Iran. The coup wasn't totally external, it had a large popular backing. The issue basically comes down to Cold War politics with the USA acting to ensure that the Soviet backed government couldn't come into power.
unprovoked war on the confederate states of america, stealing land from mexico, stealing land from the indians, invading iraq, installing the "shaw" (however you spell it) in iran, installing puppet government in africa, etc,
It's the Shah of Iran. And the USA didn't install him. In fact, the notion that the USA *could have* installed him is utterly ridiculous if you understand what it means to be a Shah. His claim to rulership predated the existence of the United States.
Now, the USA and UK did back a coup in Iran which resulted in the Shah being reinstated to power after a brief exile. However, the issue is a big clouded here because the democratically elected government was acting lawlessly, and ignoring the Constitution of Iran. The coup wasn't totally external, it had a large popular backing. The issue basically comes down to Cold War politics with the USA acting to ensure that the Soviet backed government couldn't come into power.
Same difference. He most likely wouldn't have come to power if not for the aid given to him.
hillbillyatheist Forum Master
Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 10797
Location: oklahoma
Posted:
Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:19 am
CedrickStanton wrote:
hillbillyatheist wrote:
unprovoked war on the confederate states of america, stealing land from mexico, stealing land from the indians, invading iraq, installing the "shaw" (however you spell it) in iran, installing puppet government in africa, etc,
It's the Shah of Iran. And the USA didn't install him. In fact, the notion that the USA *could have* installed him is utterly ridiculous if you understand what it means to be a Shah. His claim to rulership predated the existence of the United States.
Now, the USA and UK did back a coup in Iran which resulted in the Shah being reinstated to power after a brief exile. However, the issue is a big clouded here because the democratically elected government was acting lawlessly, and ignoring the Constitution of Iran. The coup wasn't totally external, it had a large popular backing. The issue basically comes down to Cold War politics with the USA acting to ensure that the Soviet backed government couldn't come into power.
War started over Texas. In the treaty that ended the war we purchased the territory from Mexico.
Quote:
hillbillyatheist wrote:
stealing land from the indians
What about an argument that the settlers should be considered another tribe? Does race matter? The first one there wins?
hillbillyatheist wrote:
the first ones here was the indians. you cannot deny the crimes done against them
First ones here? So what? That means everything? Did the first human here claim all the land for his race? or just his tribe? What is the land area and criteria which you think should apply?
hillbillyatheist wrote:
the small pox infested blankets given to children, the driving indians off their land into reservations, breaking treaty after treaty, etc. come on now, you don't even have a case on this one. face it. the US government really screwed the indians over, big time.
What about the Indians that allied with us? Or our enemies England? Or France? What about the hideous acts committed by Indians on colonists? As for the disease that ravaged the Indian populations that happened without deliberate effort anyway. An appeal to the evils of one side while ignoring that acts of the other is hollow. This is off topic though interesting to debate. I agree that US westward expansion was imperialism. Of course I'm glad it happened although I'd prefer the Indian population had been willingly and happily absorbed into the US but that's just a pleasant fantasy.
Quote:
hillbillyatheist wrote:
invading iraq, installing the "shaw" (however you spell it) in iran, installing puppet government in africa, etc,
Are you against supporting a group of oppressed people in a country when the oppressors have enough military power not to be toppled and support from allies in other oppressive countries? Was France a bad guy for helping US in the American revolution?
hillbillyatheist wrote:
iran voted in a democratic government who nationalized their oil, which the US felt was against our financial interests, so we took down the democratically elected government and replaced it with a military dictatorship (the shaw ~ since overthrown by the islamic nutters, back in the 70's) oh and btw, guess who helped put saddam hussein in power.
It was the idea of the British but yes the US did help remove a democratically elected Prime minister. However it cannot be said with certainty that the absence of that even would have prevented the Islamic nutters from taking over. Nor can it be said with certainty that someone better than Saddam might have taken power in Iraq without our interference. Just as the future cannot be predicted with certainty neither can history be modified and predicted with certainty. It is fair to say that the US and the CIA helped things happen the way they did though.
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:46 am
[quote="CedrickStanton"]
Saitou wrote:
hillbillyatheist wrote:
unprovoked war on the confederate states of america, stealing land from mexico,
So you support the US states seceding from the US but not the states seceding from Mexico then asking to join the union?.
CedrickStanton wrote:
That's a big fat straw man right there, Saitou. Texas really only "asked" to join the USA when it was clear they'd be reconquered by Mexico on their own, and the USA wouldn't come to their aid unless they joined up.
Their motivation for asking to join the US is not relevant to the point that Texas was not stolen.
CedrickStanton wrote:
California did not want to join the USA, the Native American held lands were not consulted on the issue, and even after the Mexico-USA war, the territory of Deseret desired to be an independent state.
California was a territory of Mexico and was sold to us in the treaty that ended the war. It is again not relevant what the people in that territory wanted when the argument is that it was not stolen from Mexico. You know it's also possible that not everyone in the southern states that seceded wanted to do so (not relevant either).
So, what land was stolen from Mexico?
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:31 am
Saitou wrote:
War started over Texas. In the treaty that ended the war we purchased the territory from Mexico.
Purchased? Like Manhattan? We know the poor track record the USA has on honoring treaties. Usually they are used to their advantage only.
Quote:
First ones here? So what? That means everything? Did the first human here claim all the land for his race? or just his tribe? What is the land area and criteria which you think should apply?
Like I said, they snoozed, they lost. You know that they didn't believe that anyone could actually own land. I know that you can justify just about any kind of action as long as profit was involved. The old Manifest Destiny crap.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
)
We know the poor track record the USA has on honoring treaties. Usually they are used to their advantage only.
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file