It really doesnt matter as its entirely hypothetical, I just cant see China's reaction to imperialism being "We have to protect the less powerful." Im pretty sure their reaction would be "Where can we sign up and how much do we get."

 

There are less than 10 atomic countries, and the majority of nuclear reserves are held by 2 (USA/Russia). The US can do what it wants to most of the world with there being very little chance at any retaliation.

 

Thankfully the US after World War II did not go imperialistic and instead tried to help most countries retain sovereignty.

I think Central and South America along with SE Asia would disagree with that.

I honestly believe that if you combined the entire military power of South America/Central America, it would not even come close to the US military.

 

Ill just use these numbers as Im lazy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ry_expenditures

 

For perspective, the US spends more in 1 year than China does in 6 years. The US spends more in 1 year than Brazil does in 20 years.

 

This is my last post on the topic, but the US military is unmatched in size and capability. In historical terms you are taking about an army that would make Hitler's blitzkrieg on Europe seem slow and ineffective., It is the single greatest military in the history of the world in terms of size/strength compared to other countries at the time. The numbers are staggering. The only advantage the US does not have is in simple numbers, but since the time of Alexander numbers have not overcome a significantly better trained and equipped opponent.

Edited February 3, 201115 yr by Soxbadger

No, you misunderstand what I meant. I was referring to the "US was no imperialistic post-WWII." We didn't come and directly take over countries, but we did plenty of things to influence, control or remove governments based on our policy preferences.

No, you misunderstand what I meant. I was referring to the "US was no imperialistic post-WWII." We didn't come and directly take over countries, but we did plenty of things to influence, control or remove governments based on our policy preferences.

Well we're still doing that to this day, are we not?

Which is technically not imperialism.

 

The point I am making is that you can control large amounts of territory if you want to be truly imperialistic (think sun never sets on the British empire.) But if you play the role the US has, with backroom manipulation etc, it often becomes difficult to truly control those areas. As you are using indirect control the control is significantly weaker.

 

Putting in a puppet governor/dictator can some times work, it can some times turn out bad (see Saddam etc). Im comparing that to the US just taking over countries, which we could do if we really wanted. Not that I support it, I am just trying to show that the US does try and not interfere, but obviously we are going to when it comes to our own best interest.

 

Which is what puts us in the same precarious position over and over again. We dont want to take over, but we want our way. You cant have both, maybe thats clearer.

Well we're still doing that to this day, are we not?

 

yeah.

Which is technically not imperialism.

 

The point I am making is that you can control large amounts of territory if you want to be truly imperialistic (think sun never sets on the British empire.) But if you play the role the US has, with backroom manipulation etc, it often becomes difficult to truly control those areas. As you are using indirect control the control is significantly weaker.

 

Putting in a puppet governor/dictator can some times work, it can some times turn out bad (see Saddam etc). Im comparing that to the US just taking over countries, which we could do if we really wanted. Not that I support it, I am just trying to show that the US does try and not interfere, but obviously we are going to when it comes to our own best interest.

 

Which is what puts us in the same precarious position over and over again. We dont want to take over, but we want our way. You cant have both, maybe thats clearer.

 

Domination is expensive and bloody. Manipulation and clandestine operations are less so. It's just the modern-day imperialism. I just really reject the idea that the US doesn't try to interfere in foreign affairs and governments since we've been doing in constantly in dozens of countries around the world for decades.

Edited February 3, 201115 yr by StrangeSox

Domination is expensive and bloody. Manipulation and clandestine operations are less so. It's just the modern-day imperialism.

 

Disagree.

 

If you take all of the countries resources for your own, the expenses usually even out. If you look at the Dutch when they were in control of the Dutch East Indian Company etc., the British or Spanish, they basically built their empires on taking resources from colonies (mercantilism).

 

Right now we are paying the cost of keeping armies stationed in countries, yet we are not raping the country of its resources/money. That is why its so costly to play world police.

 

I just really reject the idea that the US doesn't try to interfere in foreign affairs and governments since we've been doing in constantly in dozens of countries around the world for decades.

 

Who has said otherwise?

Edited February 3, 201115 yr by Soxbadger

Disagree.

 

If you take all of the countries resources for your own, the expenses usually even out. If you look at the Dutch when they were in control of the Dutch East Indian Company etc., the British or Spanish, they basically built their empires on taking resources from colonies (mercantilism).

 

Right now we are paying the cost of keeping armies stationed in countries, yet we are not raping the country of its resources/money. That is why its so costly to play world police.

 

Sure, but what's the larger political and economic impacts? The costs of controlling a territory long-term against the will of the populace on a much more intense level than we currently see in Iraq and Afghanistan would be huge. Additionally, overt imperialism isn't exactly looked at kindly these days by most nations, so we'd likely see a lot of resistance and condemnation from the EU, Russia, China, etc.

 

 

 

Who has said otherwise?

 

Not that I support it, I am just trying to show that the US does try and not interfere, but obviously we are going to when it comes to our own best interest.

Why aren't we taking control of Canada?!

Why aren't we taking control of Canada?!

Socialized health care is evil.

Okay I guess that is some what confusing so Ill clarify what that thought means.

 

The US does try and not interfere. We dont take over countries. Look at countries like Japan/Germany. The US could have easily worked out a deal with USSR/Great Britain that we were going to be directly in control of those countries. Instead we tried to allow those countries to remain sovereign nations.

 

Now the second part about when it comes to our best interest means, that while we may try not to interfere, we will interfere if we believe it is in our own self interest. I guess the point Im making is the US is in a gray area between actually taking over and running the country and being completely hands off. By being in that area the US is unable to get the exact results it wants, while at the same time being dragged into situations that it may not really want to be in.

 

Thus we make it harder on ourselves by trying to let countries do what they want, but at the same time trying to make them do what we want.

I cannot imagine what country would export inflation throughout the world with over a trillion dollars of easy money? But who cares stock prices are up.

 

 

You know, but most here don't have any idea the extent of what you're talking about.

 

I understand it all too well, unfortunately, now that I'm in the line of work that I am.

I'm surprised that people feign surprise when they talk about the US advancing its own national interest and not the interests of another country. Which is pretty much what every major power in the history of civilization has done.

Yep. Funding those Afghani militias against the Soviets worked out really well.

What's that got to do with anything?

What's that got to do with anything?

America supporting its best interest (opposing the USSR) ends up not being better for them in the long haul.

America supporting its best interest (opposing the USSR) ends up not being better for them in the long haul.

that still doesn't really have to do with what I said, and besides, that actually did work as intended. They just didn't bother following through on it and let it blow up in their face.

America supporting its best interest (opposing the USSR) ends up not being better for them in the long haul.

I'm just going to throw this out for discussion. I'm certainly not one who imagines that there was a golden age of the press, so this isn't that kind of nostalgia, but I do seem to remember that back during the Cold War and aftermath there was more upfront acknowledgment that we engaged in a lot of Realpolitik. Sure, we were still the good guys, but it wasn't farting in church to suggest that some things we did foreign policy-wise weren't all about the peeance and freeance, but just trying to rig the world in our favor. Post-9/11 especially it became America-hating to even suggest that we were less than pure in any of our motives. With the Egypt situation unfolding I'm sensing a very slight exhale in the media, opening the door to actually talking about this stuff again.

This link will be caught by the swear filter, but I think it's an on-topic point.

This link will be caught by the swear filter, but I think it's an on-topic point.

 

Yeah, because the media was all roses and sunshine during the Bush years.... GMAB.

You know, but most here don't have any idea the extent of what you're talking about.

 

I understand it all too well, unfortunately, now that I'm in the line of work that I am.

 

 

You know what is funny. Bernanke denied having anything to do with food inflation, but took credit for the rise in asset prices . f***ing moron. March 2008: "The housing market is contained." Seems eerily similar to them stating they can contain inflation today.

Yeah, because the media was all roses and sunshine during the Bush years.... GMAB.

 

The media did a pretty good job of cheerleading the Iraq war from late 2002 through the first several years.

Seems eerily similar to them stating they can contain inflation today.

Do you really think the Federal Reserve could do nothing to fight an inflationary surge if one actually happened?

 

When rates are at 0% and the Fed has accumulated trillions of dollars worth of assets that it could sell off?

You know what is funny. Bernanke denied having anything to do with food inflation, but took credit for the rise in asset prices . f***ing moron. March 2008: "The housing market is contained." Seems eerily similar to them stating they can contain inflation today.

I thought I was the only one in this forum who was worried about inflation rubber-banding when the recovery strengthens.