John McBush is funny (1 Viewer)

[blackadder]

I also believe "empire" is another of those pejoratives which should be purged from enlightened discussion, when referring to America.

Sorry DD, but the people driving our policies seek an overtky "imperial" role so it has to stay in the discussion.

In their own words:

http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses01/rrtw/boot.htm

Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets. Is imperialism a dusty relic of a long-gone era? Perhaps. But it's interesting to note that in the 1990s East Timor, Cambodia, Kosovo, and Bosnia all became wards of the international community (Cambodia only temporarily). This precedent could easily be extended, as suggested by David Rieff, into a formal system of United Nations mandates modeled on the mandatory territories sanctioned by the League of Nations in the 1920s.

Following the defeat of the German and Ottoman empires, their colonial possessions were handed out to the Allied powers, in theory to prepare their inhabitants for eventual self-rule. (America was offered its own mandate over Armenia, the Dardanelles, and Constantinople, but the Senate rejected it along with the Treaty of Versailles.) This was supposed to be "for the good of the natives," a phrase that once made progressives snort in derision, but may be taken more seriously after the left's conversion (or, rather, reversion) in the 1990s to the cause of "humanitarian" interventions.

 

[DadsDream]

Using the term "empire" to describe a nation which has no emperor is a euphemism.
Factually inaccurate.

Using the term "imperial" to describe a nation which has no monarch is also a euphemism.
Factually inaccurate.

 

[blackadder]

Using the term "empire" to describe a nation which has no emperor is a euphemism.
Factually inaccurate.

Using the term "imperial" to describe a nation which has no monarch is also a euphemism.
Factually inaccurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Presidency

http://books.google.com/books?id=zb...oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

 

[RebSaint]

Using the term "empire" to describe a nation which has no emperor is a euphemism.
Factually inaccurate.

Using the term "imperial" to describe a nation which has no monarch is also a euphemism.
Factually inaccurate.

Wrong from an historical perspective. A nation state or civilization can acquire all the trappings of an empire without an emperor or a monarch. The British Empire existed for a long time with a constitutional monarchy, where the monarch had limited power.

A precondition for empire is not just based on having an emperor or a king. Specifically Rome attained its empire before acquiring an emperor.

This idea that empires have to have monarchs, despots, or emperors is false.

I define an "empire" as a civilization which has global military, economic, social, and political power, whose borders transcend its own in a significant manner over long distances.

I don't think a civilization or nation state has to have a monarch, despot, or emperor to acquire the characteristics of an empire. The United States has acquired these characteristics beginning in the late 19th century and continued in the 20th century.

 

[blackadder]

Wrong from an historical perspective. A nation state or civilization can acquire all the trappings of an empire without an emperor or a monarch. The British Empire existed for a long time with a constitutional monarchy, where the monarch had limited power.

A precondition for empire is not just based on having an emperor or a king. Specifically Rome attained its empire before acquiring an emperor.

This idea that empires have to have monarchs, despots, or emperors is false.

Athens was a democracy yet built an empire.

The parallels with Athens are nice.

The Athenians built the Delian League in order to bind Greece toghether against external threats. The costs of maintaining the Athenian navy and other military expenditures were covered by dues (taxes) paid into a common fund by all the Greek city states.

It wasn't too long until Athens began to abuse the power and make membership in, and financial contribution to, the Leage compulsory, reducing all other members to tributary states essentially controlled from Athens. Athens also began to raid the defense fund for other expenses that benfitted Athens alone.

Sovereignty was lost. Anyone who didn't toe the line drawn by Athens became an enemy of "freedom"...

It was an empire run by a democracy.

That's how the world's first democratic experiment turned out. And we know what happened with the Romans and their democratic form (Republic) with regard to empire.

The precedents are decidedly mixed.

 

[RebSaint]

Athens was a democracy yet built an empire.

The parallels with Athens are nice.

The Athenians built the Delian League in order to bind Greece toghether against external threats. The costs of maintaining the Athenian navy and other military expenditures were covered by dues (taxes) paid into a common fund by all the Greek city states.

It wasn't too long until Athens began to abuse the power and make membership in, and financial contribution to, the Leage compulsory, reducing all other members to tributary states essentially controlled from Athens.

Sovereignty was lost. Anyone who didn't toe the line drawn by Athens became an enemy of "freedom"...

It was an empire run by a democracy.

That's how the world's first democratic experiment turned out. And we know what happened with the Romans and their democratic form (Republic) with regard to empire.

The precedents are decidedly mixed.

I forgot about Athens. Good point. Many forget that the Roman republic essentially acquired all the trappings of an empire after its series of wars with Carthage.

One characteristic which I think all empires have is the invariable erosion of liberty and the propensity to adopt more statist forms of governments, which is why I think more people should just come to grips with the fact that the United States is indeed an empire and consider the consequences of either maintaining or expanding that empire.

 

[DadsDream]

Using the above criteria, the choice of using the term "empire" or "imperial" to describe a nation state is purely subjective and based on the perceptions, beliefs and opinion of the person making the statement.

Choosing to apply such specific terminology then becomes an arbitrary matter and the tone takes on a derisive quality.

 

[RebSaint]

Using the above criteria, the choice of using the term "empire" or "imperial" to describe a nation state is purely subjective and based on the perceptions, beliefs and opinion of the person making the statement.

Choosing to apply such specific terminology then becomes an arbitrary and the tone takes on a derisive quality.

The derisive and negative connotation of Imperialism and Empire is well-deserved. Sorry, thousands of years of history have allowed these terms to not settle very well with people, and deservedly so, in my opinion. Empires and imperial powers tend to erode liberty on their own population, and subject others through force to their political, economic, and social values. Empires and imperialists for the most part have a very brutal, ugly track record regarding the treatment of their neighbors.

The quicker this country realizes that it maybe carrying out imperialist policies based on the maintenence of an empire, the quicker it will realize and consider the consequences rather than wrapping every decision as moral, just, and aligned with national interests rather than a small group of business interests.

Furthermore, while you may think the term is incorrect because of its negative connotation, I think most scholars would agree on the general definition of an empire, which more or less is the one I provided. Again, you may not like the term but there's a reason its gotten a bad connotation--and it has everything to do with the history of Empires and Imperialists.

 

[DadsDream]

The derisive and negative connotation of Imperialism and Empire is well-deserved. Sorry, thousands of years of history have allowed these terms to not settle very well with people, and deservedly so, in my opinion. Empires and imperial powers tend to erode liberty on their own population, and subject others through force to their political, economic, and social values. Empires and imperialists for the most part have a very brutal, ugly track record regarding the treatment of their neighbors.

The quicker this country realizes that it maybe carrying out imperialist policies based on the maintenence of an empire, the quicker it will realize and consider the consequences rather than wrapping every decision as moral, just, and aligned with national interests rather than a small group of business interests.

I guess my main problem is the instinctive, gut reaction of seeing the words "imperial" and "empire" applied to the the United States. It conjures up Soviet and Chinese Cold War rhetoric, causing the hackles on the back of my neck to stand up.

No offense intended. It just bothers me.

 

[covingtondog]

McCain sucks but I like him better than the other 2.

 

[champ76]

I guess my main problem is the instinctive, gut reaction of seeing the words "imperial" and "empire" applied to the the United States. It conjures up Soviet and Chinese Cold War rhetoric, causing the hackles on the back of my neck to stand up.

No offense intended. It just bothers me.

That's where I am on this whole topic.

 

[Sandman]

McCain sucks but I like him better than the other 2.

That should be a bumper sticker.

 

[Superfan]

I am voting for Turd Sandwich.

 

[DadsDream]

Jimmy Margulies, New Jersey -- The Record