Would We Be Willing to Give Up Imperialism to Combat Terrorism?

Do you think you neighbor should be able to apply pressure on you to do something you cannot or do not want to do?

Rocket River

 

We b*tch and Moan about HOAs . . . .
The US is like an HOA on steriods .. . with guns and missiles

Rocket River

 

While this is a good answer, and full of points I cannot refute, I'd still follow with questioning if the expenditure in blood and taxes and corruption that supports the untouchable estate that is our military and the industries that surround it are worth trading for the vacations, maternity leave, health care and other welfare state entitlements (as well as lack of animosity from the Third World) fellow occidental democratic societies enjoy instead.

 

How about the old America when you never heard or seen the word America and Imperialism in the same phrase?

 

What little Africa and the ME have, they have because of globalized trade. These are lawless, savage societies that sold out their own , against the will of God, for money and power and still do so today. Very different to the native Americans and aboriginals - true victims of imperialism.

In that sense, imperialism has brought logical thought and opportunities to societies without them. Math loom would still be running around naked in a turban playing grabass with Abu Baaaakar, his goat and 3rd wife. Without a civilized hand, these societies degraded themselves to the gutter on their own with constant infighting.

Don't forget that. On their own. But of course it's a touchy issue, and in Islam, we don't discuss touchy issues.

Before we make changes to the global business climate, we have to implement the ability of muslims to speak freely and candidly about the things going on around them. Even moderates are victims of community fear mongering , where they are so brainwashed they aren't allowed any autonomous thought against a scripture written 2 millenia ago. Educated women speaking up are immediately cut off from society and slandered by all males, who represent the zombies of the walking dead in thought.

Without that change in place, specific to Islam, we are sending them all back to the slaughterhouses , and losing valuable resources that end up helping the few capable of being helped.

 

Working well for Venezuela.

 

"Yes the hours far I told you before prepare for mic fight and plus the cold war"

 

Being a superpower, if you have weapons locked up in your own bases and on the borders of your country, is not overreach.

But the US is not just a superpower. It is a superpower with goals of reaching out and controlling large portions of the world and it has been succesful at doing so by sheer mass murder or the threat of it.

The question we're talking about here is: would you give up imperialism to combat terrorism (if you thought that could work)? To which you responded with a question: would anyone do this better?

Your theory here is that someone is going to do it, but at least we have the "best" country doing it. Two GINORMOUS red flags here.

1) Like I said, just because there is going to be theft doesn't mean you should be a thief. Just because women are going to be raped, doesn't mean you earn points for being the kindest rapist. You are jumping ahead on this and sweeping it under the rug. We are talking about - without exaggeration - the biggest crime in the world, bigger than bringing down a tower full of thousands of innocent people, bigger than demolishing a country and killing millions of innocents in the process. Let's not minimize this crime.

2) Somehow I get from your tone that you are pretty optimistic about the idea that the United States is at least one of the best countries to do this. I'll respond to this but only after reminding that: this is irrelevant. Every empire has been kinder than the previous one. It is a function of learning how to market your crimes better, and the global population being able to share more information with each other. It doesn't mean that when US foreign policy is set, there are people thinking about how to be a kinder empire. They simply exert the maximum force possible in the context of our current world. Every empire does its most to extract value from its citizens and foreign citizens. The reason for that is, a system of greed for power creates an environment for power-obsessed people to rise to the top. That is why there is a significantly higher proportion of child molesters, rapists, drug abusers, gamblers, drinkers in authority than there is in the general public. So let's not act like there is some movement towards a kinder treatment of humans. No such thing has ever been exhibited.

NOW, to answer your question, yes I believe there are countries who would do it better. Just off the top of my head and in your theoretical world (correct me if I'm misunderstanding base assumptions), I would love to give Norway, Germany, Switzerland, Bhutan, a freer Japan, Nepal, Costa Rica a shot. Is the United States among the top 10? Sure. But again we have American exceptionalism creeping in here for the 3rd time. Being an empire with riches has led to more rapid development of social ideas. That's not inherent. That's not an American thing. That's an empire thing. The Islamic empire constituted the most liberal nations on earth, but what does that matter now? We're talking about an empire where people were questioning the existance of god, flatness of earth, making astrological breakthroughs while their Christian brethren were offended. Has that lived on in Muslim-majority countries? No sir, that's just a function of empire.

How conservative was the US before it became so globally dominant? Why has that changed so much? Because the empire has the best tech, the best schools, the best food, the best everything. Give that environment to anyone and watch them rise. My country is a perfect example. 50 years ago there was no difference between this country and any central african country. What changed? We made the right friends, we got that environment going. Sent everyone to the empire's schools, bought the empire's books, imported the media, etc.

We can argue that: well, that's progress, that's development. And I would argue that it's piss-poor progress given what the potential was. Stromile Swift was one of the best basketball players on the planet. Is that a success story given what was possible in the kid's career?

The backbone of progress is rights. Not money. Not nice cars. Not beautiful skyscrapers. Not pretty schools that pump out robots. Rights. Do I believe that the US has supported progress in rights in the places where it places its tentacles?

The world would answer on a scale from hell no to hell yes. That's the variety of opinions on the matter. I would say: probably not, but at the same time I would obviously not want China or Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein determining how the world moves. I bet a lot of the world would back me up on that if they had the freedom to state it. You probably believe that this is the best case scenario for the world, out of hundreds if not thousands of other scenarios. That's a radical fringe opinion and a quick look at what type of authority figures (think, your allies who are not such great people, AHEM) would share that opinion gives you a fantastic glimpse into what it means to think that way.

 

Have you read this post to yourself out loud?

 

There are prerequisites to being an imperial power. The most important is being more powerful than most everybody else. That leaves us, the EU, China... maybe Russia, and that's it.

 

seems this is the key question.

Are we advocating isolationism?

And I'm curious how Bhutan, Norway, or Costa Rica would take up the imperialist reigns. What would that look like? An imperialist Nepal next to China may not be ideal. Or Japan for that matter. Germany already tried. Twice.

Full marks, though for reviving Stomile Swift's legacy. Possibly his first D&D appearance.

 

Interesting idea and interesting discussion.

I do believe that the world needs the US more than US needs the world.
I'm pretty sure that the pre ww2 doctorine of centering in might have been the easier solution for America, staying geographicaly isolated from the troubles of Europe and the chaos of Africa and the middle East.

However since ww2, the US have been the stabilising force of the world, not the opposite.

Yes, the US benefits from beeing the only superpower which is heavily involved in everything that happens around the globe. Bennefits are financial connections and strong grip and dominance on the worlds politics, that comes back to support american interests.

Nevertheless the majority of the world needs to stand in owe to the US, not to resents its efforts for world order and stability.
Power, in the term of military streangth is as much as a defensive force as it is an aggresive force.
Since America took over as the leading force, the relative violence decreased dramatically, in case of an agenda to collapse the us back into itself, facing in rather than out, the chaos and bloodshed around the world would be horific. You cant even begin to imagine the horors that will happen in Africa, middle east and even Europe.

In the short term, americans might benefit from collapsing in, however you cant isolate yourself for too long. Eventualy, you would realize not only you lost your hold on the world, you might have lost the world...

 

Fixed it for you.

 

Sounds like OP should have voted for Ron Paul

 

The one time that I agree with Glynch. Imperialism is the reason we are in the freaking predicament on the International playing field. The world hates us because of our big brother approach, and wanting to spread "democracy" world wide. The focus needs to be on our own people here at home, instead of abroad.

The only thing is, over time if we were "non interventional" completely, would we be pulled into a world's conflict again down the road like WWII? You have to consider this.

 

Couldn't agree more with this statement, and I love it

 

With the globalization of the world's economy, the vast majority of the people on Earth are not so dependant upon the US or think much about it.

It no longer has the world's largest economy (that's the EU), the freest press, the freest economy, the most social mobility, the highest quality of life, and so on. If you want those things, they are found elsewhere, mostly in Northern Europe, Australia, and Canada.

The US has the world's largest military, and that's about it. Just loads and loads of bases around the world and ****loads of things to put in them. Just the ability to project force efficiently, anywhere.

Do you think it's doing a good job of keeping the world safe?
Do you really feel you are getting good return on investment for that?
Would you rather invest your hard earned tax money in maybe the development of your own country?
Would you like to lead the world maybe in something else?

 

Some would suggest that the most effective way to combat terrorism would be to rapidly increase imperialism, especially in the areas where the terrorists are most heavily concentrated.

 

Can't afford it, would result in financial crisis, and would cause terrorist groups to multiply exponentially and strengthen their recruitment efforts and access to weapons. I don't know if you realize this, but there's a very recent and prominent case study on this. The blowback is also becoming untenable. At some point you have to understand the limitations you have in protecting your border and your people abroad. Prior to 9/11, terrorist attacks happened every 20+ years in America. As foreign policy has become more vicious, more terrorists have grown. Inversely, as foreign policy has become less vicious in south america, the number of what you used to call terrorists has dwindled. It's also objectively harder to attack the US than it is Europe, simply due to proximity to the victims of the empire.

If you intend on maintaining foreign interests - i.e. the theft of other people's property and rights, something which your ancestors engaged in terrorism AGAINST - then it's not terrible to only have a terrorist attack every 20 years and no amount of security and intelligence could put a dent in that number anyway. Either you accept that or you delete everyone's privacy rights, build a wall around the country, a dome on top and live that way. But no one wants to live that way. Trust me on that one. It sucks balls.

If the world's most powerful force is running its own country like a jail cell and hardly changing the likelihood of a terrorist attack, something is very wrong.

You are 8 times more likely to be wrongfully killed by a police officer than a terrorist in America. If you want to combat the loss of innocent lives, imperialism is easily the least effective, most expensive way to go for Americans. You could sink 1/50th of the military budget in local authorities to develop safer technologies, shields, tools, ramping up education, aim to raise their EQ and IQ, and just generally get them to stop being such scared people. They are frightened those guys, almost cowardly compared to other authorities in western countries.

Imperialism is, however, one of the most effective ways to funnel money from the general American public into the hands of the 1%. Seamless transition, and perpetuates the problem. That's what imperialism has always been about, they are not raping and pillaging foreign countries for your average joe.

I mean, consider for a moment that 4-5 Middle Eastern countries have ceased to exist, essentially being wiped off the face of the planet by the US or its American armed allies with its support just in very recent history. And you are here saying maybe there's not enough imperialism? Do you realize how inhuman this is?