Is America imperalist?

The term gets thrown around a lot. I'm not going to discuss it but I'm sure other people have interesting views on it.

This looks like it will be a touchy topic.

Other Wikis page titled American Imperialism

Not sure about imperialism specifically, but it looks like it considers the whole word it's rightful sphere of interests, and meddles into everything uninvited. Which would be understandable, if it did not at the same time claim that it is wrong for other countries to act in the same way. America applies different standards to itself than to other countries, and acts a if it is allowed more.

The moral distinction generally offered is the difference between democracies and non-democracies. YMMV on how convincing that is.

Not very. YMMV, of course.

The thing is that America doesn't seem to have a strong imperial ambition and most of the spheres of influence ran counter to the Soviets or in some way were short-term rather than long-term occupation.

Iraq was supposed to be left to its own feet within a year.

It is, and it needs to cut the crap until it can get itself in order.

"Yes it is" doesn't further discussion and its just a useless one-liner.

It doesn't have an empire, nor does it want to. It's not imperialist.

Alaska and Hawai'i. Calling them 'states' doesn't change what they are. We also get into the business of every other country on Earth with no reasoning behind it except to manipulate the situation to benefit us. It's not straight Imperialism, but it's close enough.

Also, ever hear of the Roosevelt Corollary? Look it up some time.

The conversation was "Is America Imperialist?" The answer is yes, IMO.If you feel that wasn't relevant to the discssion, kindly be more careful about how you name discussions and what can be defined as 'on-topic.' Thanks.

Ninja-edited for spelling errors.

edited 8th Jan '11 12:34:45 PM by Diamonnes

All I know is "American Empire" has a pretty cool ring to it.

But I'm otherwise apathetic, aside from that I could be an Imperial Guardsman since I'm in the guard, and perhaps we could one day have a God Emperor..

Alaska and Hawai'i. Calling them 'states' doesn't change what they are.

LOLNO. The vast majority of people in both states don't want independence.

There are a few that are. Hawai'i has a sizeable (but not huge) demilitarization movement.

I'm not sure if that's a good measurement, I know of some California separation movements.

I said "the vast majority", not "all".

Puerto Rico would be a better example.

Anyways, I don't think the term applies well. Empires as multinational governments fell out of favour; they're an inefficient and obsolete way of spreading economic and military hegemony. We've privatized the empire in this last century; corporations have more influence than governments now.

Puerto Rico would be a better example.

A better example, but still not a very good one; popular referendums for independence in Puerto Rico have failed.

How about the Philippines then?

It's not imperialist because it doesn't have an Emperor, and therefore can't really be considered an empire. Though it is militarist.

You should research the meaning of Imperialism And an Empire doesn't need an Emperor: it can have Consules instead, among other things.

And yeah, the USA is imposing its world order by force, taking whatever resources they need or having them delivered, promoting and deposing dictators, and also being self-satisfied hypocritical pricks about it (that final bit is only my opinion). It's imperalism, in the modern way. It relies on having the sole superpower, on having enough nukes to end the world many times over, on dealing Disporportionate Retribution to anyone who dare hurt it, and on generally being forceful and ham-fisted with their gigantic military that takes up so much of their national budget it's plain ridiculous, by European standards (who are quite happy to share the umbrella while exchanging friendly accusations of neocolonialism accross the pond). People hate them, and many are impatient for their inevitable fall to tear them to pieces. This only encourages them to maintain their unsustainable brutal policies, thus further sinking their overindebted economy and morality into bankruptcy. Sheathe Your Sword isn't even an option, at least not thoughtlessly: it might take a looong process for the USA to be able to afford not to spend so many resources on WEPON.

And this, my friends, is why having an empire, even one based on private, unpatriotic, Fair-Weather Friend megacorporations sucks. The Corporations aren't in the service of that country. Rather, it's the USA, government, infrastructures, and people, that is at the service of these entities, and will remain so until it outlives its usefulness, whence it will be abandoned to its grim fate of poverty and ignominy, perhaps even a new civil war, given how polarized the country is and how sharp the ideological contrasts between regions are.

edited 8th Jan '11 4:34:40 PM by RawPower

That was...depressing.

Why thank you.

Wow. Raw, you might be a bit cynical on religion for my taste, but you sure as hell know what you're talking about politically. Hat's off, man.

As to the "Hawai'i and Alaska and Puerto Rico aren't separatist" thing: That doesn't mean jack shit, to be blunt. America didn't always want to separate from Britain. The Falklands Islands don't want to separate from the U.K, and neither does Gibraltar. They're still colonies.

Pretty much, yeah. Giving congressional representation doesn't mean you didn't take these places by force/ bribe other countries for them (Delete as needed). The Romans gave conquered nations full Roman rights. They still conquered them. The thing is that Imperialism with a sugary smiley face is still Imperialism.

edited 8th Jan '11 5:55:14 PM by Diamonnes

Actually, Alaska and Hawaii are states, with congressional representation.

Was the Roman Republic already an empire circa 146 BC? Because that's about America's position in the world.