How do we end American Imperialism?

[MrDibble]

Was that supposed to be a rebuttal?

[Duke_of_Rat]

Man, that puppet dictator the US has installed in the Philippines is really a piece of work, I don’t blame them for wanting to throw off the shackles of Imperialist US oppression.

[octopus]

@boffking

I think we need to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries. We have done far too much damage to people all around the world. Staging coups in third world countries to take their resources sounds like an agenda for a Bond villain, not the “Greatest country in the world”.
How do we put a stop to this? Democracy can’t be imposed, and overthrowing governments creates major disasters. I think this is unacceptable, and tax dollars should not be spent on it.

My beef with American imperialism as of late is that we have not added any more states. I’d like a flag with a few more stars.

[doorhinge]

@boffking

I think we need to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries. We have done far too much damage to people all around the world. Staging coups in third world countries to take their resources sounds like an agenda for a Bond villain, not the “Greatest country in the world”.
How do we put a stop to this? Democracy can’t be imposed, and overthrowing governments creates major disasters. I think this is unacceptable, and tax dollars should not be spent on it.

In order to end American Imperialism, I propose that the government of the United States return New Mexico and California to old Mexico. Old Mexico can use the tax pesos that will be generated by the Hollyweird-types to fight the influence of the drug cartels.

[DrDeth]

@Siam_Sam

Your last sentence in this post of yours says you did try to edit the Wikipedia article.

I tried to *undo *a edit, it was reversed in two minutes.

[Little_Nemo]

@drewder

The Roman republic lasted far less than that.

The Republic lasted for five hundred years. The Empire lasted for well over a thousand. If you acknowledge the empire was really two separate regimes - the Principate and the Dominate - you still have to concede they each lasted for centuries. Which tends to disprove the argument that strength gained through military dominance is transitory.

There are counterexamples, but the general rule is that militarily stronger powers outlast militarily weaker powers.

[Jackmannii]

@Duke_of_Rat

Man, that puppet dictator the US has installed in the Philippines is really a piece of work, I don’t blame them for wanting to throw off the shackles of Imperialist US oppression.

Yeah, it’s high time they at least got limited autonomy, except that we need to control the breadfruit market.

[Ravenman]

@MrDibble

Was that supposed to be a rebuttal?

Not a factual rebuttal.

You didn’t read your own cite, and anyone who reads it knows that it refutes the nonsense you’re trying to convince us of (that the US tells the Philippines what to do). Instead, you double down on your empire argument.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Better to slink off and join some other debate when your own cites contradict what you think they say.

[MrDibble]

@Ravenman

Not a factual rebuttal.

That would be because there is no factual rebuttal.

You didn’t read your own cite, and anyone who reads it knows that it refutes the nonsense you’re trying to convince us of (that the US tells the Philippines what to do).

Did I say anything like that? You have a cite for me saying anything like that?

The US doesn’t need to do anything so crass as tell the Philippines what to do at this point. Like a dealer doesn’t need to do anything so crass as spike people with his product once they’re already dependent.

Instead, you double down on your empire argument.

You think American Imperialism is uniquely my argument? Or that the evidence I’ve raised is of my own invention?

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Huh, from your lips to the ears of the architects of American foreign policy.

Better to slink off and join some other debate when your own cites contradict what you think they say.

How about “No” and “Says you!”…

[Little_Nemo]

What exactly are you anti-imperialists proposing the United States should do?

Should we allow the Philippines to become an independent country? That happened back in 1946.

Should we refuse to station American troops in the Philippines? Even when the Philippines are asking for American troops to be stationed in their country?

Same questions with Puerto Rico. Are we supposed to give Puerto Rico back to Spain?

Do we offer to let Puerto Rico become an independent country? We’ve done that several times but they’ve said no. Are we supposed to kick them out despite this?

[Ravenman]

@MrDibble

That would be because there is no factual rebuttal.
Did I say anything like that? You have a cite for me saying anything like that?

The US doesn’t need to do anything so crass as tell the Philippines what to do at this point. Like a dealer doesn’t need to do anything so crass as spike people with his product once they’re already dependent.
You think American Imperialism is uniquely my argument? Or that the evidence I’ve raised is of my own invention? Huh, from your lips to the ears of the architects of American foreign policy.How about “No” and “Says you!”…

You claim the Philippines are an example of the American empire. They are an independent nation that told the US to get lost in the mid-1990s, and we left Clark and Subic. When vassal states told empires to get lost, the general reaction by the empire is to suppress a rebellion by force, not pack their things and leave.

More recently, the Philippines have very nearly blundered into naval battles with China over territorial claims in the SCS. Over the last several years, Philippine governments have asked for more help in defending its sovereign claims. Without judging the legitimacy of those disputed claims, and with the prime interest that such claims are adjudicated on merits and the law, rather than force, the US has gradually been increasing assistance to the country, similar to how the US has been responding to similar requests from Vietnam and other countries.

You’ve got this so ass-backwards that it is rediculous. Here is an example where a superpower is helping weak countries NOT fall into a war, and you’re convinced that the weak countries are being exploited.

Unless you think that China should be able to seize islands and reefs that quite clearly don’t belong to them, just because might makes right, you should be commending the US for doing something that really is on the side of fairness and justice. But I suppose you’re so steeped in the “US = bad guy” mindset that you’re picking the exactly wrong example to use of that thesis, and then rediculously trying to save your viewpoint in a way that even a casual observer can see you’re way off base.

It’s like if you were to argue that soccer isn’t a boring sport, and you urge someone to watch a 0-0 game with no shots on goal to prove your point.

[Siam_Sam]

@DrDeth

I tried to *undo *a edit, it was reversed in two minutes.

Same difference.

[MrDibble]

@Little_Nemo

What exactly are you anti-imperialists proposing the United States should do?

Personally? Confine itself to its own territory and only conduct foreign military actions under UN mandate.

Should we refuse to station American troops in the Philippines? Even when the Philippines are asking for American troops to be stationed in their country?

Yes, and yes.

Same questions with Puerto Rico. Are we supposed to give Puerto Rico back to Spain?

Do we offer to let Puerto Rico become an independent country? We’ve done that several times but they’ve said no. Are we supposed to kick them out despite this?

You could, IDK, make them a state?

[MrDibble]

@Ravenman

You claim the Philippines are an example of the American empire. They are an independent nation that told the US to get lost in the mid-1990s, and we left Clark and Subic. When vassal states told empires to get lost, the general reaction by the empire is to suppress a rebellion by force, not pack their things and leave.

… and wait to be asked back, like you knew they would.

More recently, the Philippines have very nearly blundered into naval battles with China over territorial claims in the SCS. Over the last several years, Philippine governments have asked for more help in defending its sovereign claims. Without judging the legitimacy of those disputed claims, and with the prime interest that such claims are adjudicated on merits and the law, rather than force, the US has gradually been increasing assistance to the country, similar to how the US has been responding to similar requests from Vietnam and other countries.

Yeah, when have we seen this kind of situation play out in SE Asia before? Didn’t end well for the US then.

You’ve got this so ass-backwards that it is rediculous. Here is an example where a superpower is helping weak countries NOT fall into a war, and you’re convinced that the weak countries are being exploited.

I’m failing to see how an increased US military presence is doing anything to deescalate tensions in the region.

Unless you think that China should be able to seize islands and reefs that quite clearly don’t belong to them, just because might makes right,

I think no such thing.

you should be commending the US for doing something that really is on the side of fairness and justice.

If it was, say, Norway offering this kind of military assistance, yeah, I’d agree it would be commendable.

But it’s not, it’s the US, a proven bad actor in modern international relations.

It’s like if you were to argue that soccer isn’t a boring sport, and you urge someone to watch a 0-0 game with no shots on goal to prove your point.

Your powers of analogy are … well, confusing would be the charitable view.

[Ravenman]

@MrDibble

If it was, say, Norway offering this kind of military assistance, yeah, I’d agree it would be commendable.

Thank you for saying this, I think it puts the issue to rest. Your position is essentially an ad hominem against the US: if this county does it, its bad; if that country does exactly the same thing, it’s good. The facts are irrelevant, only the actors matter. Got it.

[MrDibble]

@Ravenman

Thank you for saying this, I think it puts the issue to rest. Your position is essentially an ad hominem against the US

You might want to revisit what an ad hominem actually is. My position is against US policy.

: if this county does it, its bad; if that country does exactly the same thing, it’s good. The facts are irrelevant, only the actors matter. Got it.

Well, I wouldn’t be keen on the UK, Russia, France or any other former recent imperial power doing what the US does, either, so it’s not arbitrary animus directed at the US just because it’s the US. It’s justified animus directed at the US for its own past actions.

Hell, just US fucking around in the South China Sea screams “Tonkin!” to anyone with any memory.

[Alessan]

The problem, MrDibble, is that you assume that “imerialistic” countries are in any way different from countries that have not yet had the opportunity to be imperialists - an opportunity they would take, one and all. Nations exert whatever power they have. If they don’t, they cease to exist.

[Ravenman]

@MrDibble

You might want to revisit what an ad hominem actually is. My position is against US policy.

That assertion that you’re arguing against US policy doesn’t hold water.

You said yourself that if Norway were helping the Philippines defend their sovereign claims (or at least helping the situation not be settled by violent means), such a policy would be “commendable.”

But if the US (or the UK, Russia, etc) engage in the exact same policy, you argue that it is imperialism. That means that you are not arguing against a policy of security assistance, you are arguing against the “person” carrying out the policy.

I’m curious, does the same bias extend to other foreign policy matters? If the US offers a loan or loan guarantee to a less-developed country to build infrastructure, is that imperialism? And if Sweden offers the exact same thing, it is commendable?

[MrDibble]

@Alessan

The problem, MrDibble, is that you assume that “imerialistic” countries are in any way different from countries that have not yet had the opportunity to be imperialists - an opportunity they would take, one and all. Nations exert whatever power they have. If they don’t, they cease to exist.

Bullshit.

@Ravenman

That assertion that you’re arguing against US policy doesn’t hold water.

Oh, do tell…

You said yourself that if Norway were helping the Philippines defend their sovereign claims (or at least helping the situation not be settled by violent means), such a policy would be “commendable.”

But if the US (or the UK, Russia, etc) engage in the exact same policy, you argue that it is imperialism. That means that you are not arguing against a policy of security assistance, you are arguing against the “person” carrying out the policy.

I’m arguing against how I perceive such policy would be carried out. Norway supplies troops to UN missions all the time. Number of permanent/semi-permanent Norwegian foreign military bases? 0.

And not even Norway is unimpeachable when it comes to imperialism, it claims a sizeable chunk of Antarctica. But its foreign military endeavours in this modern age are above-board. The same can not be said of the US.

I’m curious, does the same bias extend to other foreign policy matters? If the US offers a loan or loan guarantee to a less-developed country to build infrastructure, is that imperialism? And if Sweden offers the exact same thing, it is commendable?

No, I’m confining imperialism to territorial claims and a policy of extraterritorial garrisoning (excluding antipiracy operations like Japan’s).

[Alessan]

@MrDibble

Bullshit.

So you’re saying that some countries are inherently imperialistic and some countries aren’t, and you can tell them apart?