I don’t think it’s anything inherent, no. Clearly some countries go through bits when they are (e.g. Manifest Destiny) and bits when they aren’t (non-interventionism), and some countries have a more imperialistic track record overall, and others less so, but some countries just aren’t that way inclined.
By their actions, yes, I think you can. I’m certain that even if it were given the power the US currently wields, Switzerland is not suddenly going to start empire building. New Zealand is not going to be sending gunboats to Samoa even if it could get away with it. Norway sits on a ton of oil money and isn’t using it to do anything but be helpful, internationally.
Some countries are just inherently more good than others when it comes to foreign policy, and it’s not for lack of means to do bad. Some few are just worse - North Korea, say, or Russia. Some, like the US, are somewhere in the middle.
So, again, Poland, the Philippines, Australia, and many many other countries invite US troops to come stay in their country, and you say this is an American imperialist policy?
Each of those countries is fully capable of kicking us out. Just as the Philippines has. You have a weird definition of imperialism, in which the actual imperialism consists of countries inviting us in. But America is involved, so it MUST be imperialism, right?
So, it’s just America being helpful, then? Yeah, this other one, if pulled, will have bells on, mate.
It’s not an imperative, it’s descriptive of past performance. If America doesn’t want to be suspected of imperialism, it shouldn’t have done all those imperialist things - foment coups, colonize places, etc.
Oh, right, it was all about stopping communism…:rolleyes:
So you’re saying if other countries ask for our help, we should tell them no.
How is that a good foreign policy?
The United States has offered to make Puerto Rico a state. They said no.
Are you suggesting we force statehood upon them?
You seem to have a bizarre notion of imperialism. Most people can grasp the important distinction between compelling another country to do something and agreeing to do something another country asked for. But you apparently see no difference between these. You seem to regard any interaction with another country as imperialism.
Let me give you my personal assurance that if I ever meet the American who kept slavery going until a war had to end it; who colonized the Philippines; who ordered the coups in Honduras and Iran; I’ll personally punch him in the nose.
And if a time machine is ever invented to go back and change those things, well that would be swell.
But your hardon that this is the same country as is was fifty or a hundred years ago speaks more to your bias than any reasonable way to judge a country’s place in the world. Shall we judge your country on the basis of its policies several generations ago, to the exclusion of what is actually happening today?
No, that’s not what I’m saying. Read what I wrote again.
Working under global consensus is better foreign policy than unilateral use of force.
The 1998 referendum? Because the 2012 vote was for statehood (ridiculous arguments about abstentions aside)
:rolleyes:Yes, that’s totally what I’m suggesting…
is straw really the only building material in y’all’s section of the Enchanted Forest? Because it seems to be all you and Ravenman are using to construct your versions of what “I’m” suggesting.
So “bizarre” no-one else has ever considered the idea of America as Empire. Oh,wait…
I’ve already stated exactly what I consider imperialism -extraterritorial holdings, extending territorial claims beyond the reasonable border of the metropole to the periphery without concomitant political franchise, and extraterritorial garrison bases.
I’m judging America based on its current engagement with the world, and using the past and present as an indicator of future performance. And not the past of 100 years ago or 50 years ago, but thirteen. And America has given no sign that its foreign policy has changed all that much since Iraq.
is it your contention that the America of today is not the America of 2003?
:rolleyes: Firstly, read my past posts on what I think about people who try and play sed etiam patriae - rolling my eyes is the least of it.
Secondly, you’re flat-out wrong and making straw effigies again, I have indicated more than once that I judge on both the past and present actions - I mentioned both past and present indicators. What in my posts leads you to think it’s only past American actions I hold suspect?
How exactly did I misread you? Do you have some uncommon definition of the word yes?
You’re claiming you were aware Puerto Rico declined the offer of statehood when you wrote this:
And then, once again, you claimed I misunderstood you. So, okay, explain. If you were aware Puerto Rico doesn’t want to become a state what did you mean when you said we should make them a state? How does making Puerto Rico do something they don’t want to do not qualify as force?
How is agreeing to do something another country asked us to do a unilateral use of force?
Note that these aren’t strawman arguments we’re making up. These are quotes from your posts.
No, but you clearly have an uncommon definition of the word “saying”. I said nothing like what you said, i merely responded to two different questions individually: If a country asks for help *in that particular way *, the US should refuse. If a country just “asks for help”, the US should respond under whatever international mandate applies.
No, I’m claiming that “making them a state”* is* “doing what they want”, as per the 2012 poll.
So no, I am not aware that PR “doesn’t want to be a state” because that is not, in fact, the case.
“Unilateral”, in this sense, means without the consensus of the accepted multilateral bodies - the UN, or NATO where applicable. But you’re right, “Bilateral” is actually what I mean, I apologize for the mistake in terminology.
Of course it is. The America of 1945 is different than the America of 1939. And 2003 was different than 2000, and 1919 was different than 1905, and so on and so on.
The invasion of Iraq was a colossal blunder, but really the concept of Bush and that crew was to invade and leave in a short period of time. Remember the whole “the war and reconstruction will only cost $50 billion” line? The invasion of Iraq wasn’t designed to be an imperialist act - which would probably be based upon a permanent US presence. It turned out that way because it was a flaming disaster. And in any case, the real enduring US presence in the Middle East are countries who WANT the US there, such as Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain.
Because you aren’t judging the value of current policies. As you said, Norway and the US could do the exact same thing in the present, but your prejudice against the US means that you will view one policy favorably and the other unfavorably. That means you aren’t evaluating the present.
The second is not imperialism and the first imposes too many subjective, normative criteria.
[QUOTE=Merriam-Webster Dictionary]
imperial government, authority, or system; 2) the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence
[/QUOTE]
Now, the acquisition of places like Puerto Rico was imperialism. Whether their current state (pardon the pun) is dependent on the circumstances. The 2012 Puerto Rican vote was a very unclear result in terms of whether its people actually want statehood, since the options offered to them were very limited and those opting for statehood were actually a plurality and not a majority. If the people of Puerto Rico want the U.S. Congress to start the process of making them a state, then they should send a clearer message through a clean, one question referendum of whether they wish Puerto Rico to become a U.S. state and a majority answer in the affirmative.
As for U.S. military bases abroad, unless you can show that the presence of any particular base either alone exerts or the forces manning the base exert control over the political or economic life of the country they are in, simply having a military base in a foreign country is not imperialism. The U.K. has military bases in Cyprus, France and the U.S. have military bases in the African country of Djibouti (among other places), Russia now has several bases in Syria in addition to their long-standing one in Tartus. Just because Russia has had one and now several bases in Syria does not mean they control Syria or the Syrian regime. They certainly have a lot of leverage over it, but given that Assad’s regime is no longer in danger of imminent collapse and he still has Iran, Russia could not likely force Assad to step down except by using their own military forces to strike him.
Similarly, Djibouti has offered China land to create a military base in their country. If the U.S. (or France) were controlling its government simply by their operating a military base, they certainly would not allow such an offer to be made, potentially requiring them to operate militarily in close quarters with China
So the United States should decide what kind of help other countries are allowed to ask for? Isn’t it paternalistic to assume our judgment of what other countries need is better than their own?
Of course it is (or part of it) - “frontier” garrison bases have been part of Empire since the Roman castra - hell, since the Egyptians.
Politics is art, not science. There’s nothing wrong with subjective judgement of whether something is or isn’t an empire.
I disagree. And it was a majority of those who actually answered the question.
Which would happen if Congress stopped blocking any move forward on the issue…
Possibility of force is control.
You do a great job of refuting it not being imperialism by… listing a bunch of undeniably imperialist powers in addition to the US.
I extracted the contradictory statements in that paragraph just to highlight them.
Just because there are competing imperial interests doesn’t refute the imperial ambitions of either…;
If it was truly different, it would have a fundamentally different foreign policy in place, but its ongoing actions indicate this is not the case.
Ha ha ha ha ha. Please, stop, I’m here for a serious discussion, not a comedy routine.
I’m making an informed judgement of them, yes.
Of course I am - are you seriously saying you judge everyone just based on their current action, entirely disregarding past behaviour? Seriously?:dubious:
No.
That’s the UN’s job
It’s not paternalistic to wait for group consensus.
The foriegn policy of the US has changed over time. Depending on what years you pick to compare, the changes may be more evolutionary than revolutionary, of course. But this is such an obvious point that I’m not sure how you disagree.
Are you familiar with the term “collective security” and the UN Charter’s general approach to it?
More specifically, lets say country A and B want to form some kind of security pact. Either a mutual defense treaty or some other arrangement. Do you think the UN is obliged to validate that pact?
Let’s say country B is attacked. Do you think country A is required to wait for UN approval to come to defense of B?
Where I clearly I disagree is whether it’s “evolved” enough in the last 13 years to be fundamentally different enough.
Straight question : do you believe current US foreign policy is fundamentally different from what it was 10 years ago - and bear in mind, by “fundamentally different” I mean like the difference between the Manifest Destiny and Non-Involvement policies, not “do we do drone strikes rather than send Marines in Humvees”.
:rolleyes: Yes, I’ve read Article 51…
No. But where, pray tell, have I said anything about “obligation” at all?
No. But where have I said anything about “required” at all.
I’m not talking about obligations and requirements. I’m talking about how the US could act in order to not be perceived as imperialistic. Not any international sanction or law, just perception.
Also, what current “attack” is happening to the Philippines (other than their internal issues?) Jockeying over disputed territory in the South China Sea is not an armed attack by any stretch of the term.
The US has not turned into a country that suits your opinions in the last decade, but I believe there’s been significant changes. The case for invading Iraq was unfortunately popular. The idea of invading Syria for frankly similar reasons - terrorism etc - is not popular. Also, the public seems pretty satisfied with negotiating with Iran to end their nuclear program instead of starting a war. That’s a lot different than 2002.
Snark does nothing to add to the debate.
You have made several vague statements to the effect of the UN needs to be more involved in situations like the US-Philippines security agreement. In my opinion, collective security agreements like the one we’re talking about are 100% legal under the UN Charter and 110% in keeping with the spirit and purpose of the UN. I don’t think there’s any special obligation for any country to do even more to comply with the law and the spirit of international treaties for the sake of some people’s opinions about “appearances.”
[wuote]Also, what current “attack” is happening to the Philippines (other than their internal issues?) Jockeying over disputed territory in the South China Sea is not an armed attack by any stretch of the term.
[/QUOTE]
If you go back and read my post again, you’ll see I never said the Philippines was attacked, though it was certainly the case that it’s coast guard vessels were blundering into a very dangerous situation a couple years ago near Scarborough Shoals. I quite clearly wrote a hypothetica about country A and B so as to inquire about your views on a general basis of principles, not the specific case we’re talking about here.
And I disagree that the change has been all that significant.
Republicans in Congress, not so much. So half the govt is against the deal - how much has changed really? You realize when I talk about “America” in this thread, I’m talking about the government and its foreign projections, military and other, not the US citizenry, right?
And don’t give me the empty platitude that they’re the same thing.
:rolleyes: Coming from the guy who posted this:
. That’s rich.
There’s been nothing vague about it - I’ve made it clear I don’t think the US should be entering in the agreement at all, and should not, IMO, be basing any troops in any foreign country.
Yes to the first, no to the second, IMO.
If the US and its citizens don’t care about how it’s foreign actions are thought of elsewhere, it (and they) shouldn’t have such thin skins.
And I addressed the hypothetical in my immediate reply. The bit at the end was asking what this line of questioning actually has to do with the real-world example of the US in the Philippines we had been discussing.
And your version of “significant change” is refusing to enter bilateral security pacts supported by both governments, because some people in the world don’t like one of those countries? Am I in th ballpark?
In 2002, both parties voted for an unjustified war. The American public was strongly in favor of it. Today, an agreement opposed by one of America’s top allies is being implemented, notwithstanding the opposition of one party, which is probably more based on politics rather than substantive reasons. And the American people are generally okay with such a controversial agreement. If you don’t see that as change, then I submit that you’re setting up your own “no true Scotsman.”
You’ve been clear on your bias against the United States; I said that you made vague statements that the UN should somehow be in the middle of determining whether the US and the Philippines should be allowed to make an agreement between themselves.
I don’t mean this as snark, but I’m not sure how to respond to this. Do you seek an explaination of the South China Sea disputes? Do you seek an explaination of why Southeast Asian nations are concerned about China’s military buildup and are generally tightening relations with the US out of their own self-interest? I’m not clear on what’s unclear on what is happening in the region.
Rapprochement with Iran is just a tiny step. The US still has a worldwide network of military outposts and still kills at will with drones. So playing nice with one group, under one political party, is just a drop in the ocean. Keeping up the new accord, that’s more significant. Let’s wait 5 years before we leap all over JCPOA as a sign of the Second Coming.
I don’t have a bias against the United States, “bias” generally being considered unfair prejudice. I’m prejudiced against the US entirely based on its own past actions. That’s not bias, that’s informed opinion
I didn’t say the UN had to get in the middle of the current situation. I said the US should withdraw from foreign bases, and only act when there was UN mandate. Not the same thing, actually.
No, I’m good, thanks
No, I’m up to speed on the fears involved, thanks
Nothing’s unclear. I just clearly disagree with you as to whether it’s any of the US’s military business.
