quote:

Nevertheless, the critique that imperialism constitutes bad American foreign policy has serious merit: the real problem with imperialism is not that it is evil, but rather that it is too expensive and therefore a problematic grand strategy for a country like the United States. Many an empire has collapsed because of the burden of conquest. It is one thing to acknowledge the positive attributes of Rome or Hapsburg Austria; it is quite another to justify every military intervention that is considered by elites in Washington.

Thus, the debate Americans should be having is the following: Is an imperial-like foreign policy sustainable? I use the term imperial-like because, while the United States has no colonies, its global responsibilities, particularly in the military sphere, burden it with the expenses and frustrations of empires of old. Caution: those who say such a foreign policy is unsustainable are not necessarily isolationists. Alas, isolationism is increasingly used as a slur against those who might only be recommending restraint in certain circumstances.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: Artisculation2

To some extent, the break up of the Ottoman Empire spawned all the chaos in te middle east. The Arabs hated the Turkish Ottomans who subjugated them for 500 years. The Ottoman Empire also created the situation that eventually erupted in Yugoslavia. Basically the muslims, who were the same ethnic group as the Serb-Croats but whose ancestors had converted to Islam for personal ambitions within the empire were hated.

it's more complicated than that, serbs and croats speak the same language but are very different, serbs are orthodox and while croat are catholic, and there are more historical and political differences. Muslims are mostly in bosnia-herzegovina and macedonia, but the real issues started at the end of WWII when serbs conquested the whole balcanic region.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Artisculation2

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: Artisculation2

To some extent, the break up of the Ottoman Empire spawned all the chaos in te middle east. The Arabs hated the Turkish Ottomans who subjugated them for 500 years. The Ottoman Empire also created the situation that eventually erupted in Yugoslavia. Basically the muslims, who were the same ethnic group as the Serb-Croats but whose ancestors had converted to Islam for personal ambitions within the empire were hated.

it's more complicated than that, serbs and croats speak the same language but are very different, serbs are orthodox and while croat are catholic, and there are more historical and political differences. Muslims are mostly in bosnia-herzegovina and macedonia, but the real issues started at the end of WWII when serbs conquested the whole balcanic region.

Yes, but they are all genetically the same ethnic group, it is conquest and empires that divided them into orthodox, catholic and muslim. First the Ottoman and then the Austro-Hungarian empires. It was only Tito who could hold all the groups together post war basically because he was a war hero.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Love how they gloss over many of the negatives of empires and focus on the positives. Thats good journalism right there

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Quoted from the article:

quote:

Nevertheless, the critique that imperialism constitutes bad American foreign policy has serious merit: the real problem with imperialism is not that it is evil, but rather that it is too expensive and therefore a problematic grand strategy for a country like the United States. Many an empire has collapsed because of the burden of conquest. It is one thing to acknowledge the positive attributes of Rome or Hapsburg Austria; it is quite another to justify every military intervention that is considered by elites in Washington.

Thus, the debate Americans should be having is the following: Is an imperial-like foreign policy sustainable? I use the term imperial-like because, while the United States has no colonies, its global responsibilities, particularly in the military sphere, burden it with the expenses and frustrations of empires of old. Caution: those who say such a foreign policy is unsustainable are not necessarily isolationists. Alas, isolationism is increasingly used as a slur against those who might only be recommending restraint in certain circumstances.

I don't agree that our global responsibilities are burdened with the expense and frustration of empires of old because this presumes the same objectives. The objectives of the United States today are not (and should not be) similar to the objectives of the old imperial regimes. And to even suggest so is ludicrous.

My extended family claims the following heritages: English, Greek, Indian, Irish, Italian. It is only ever to one's advantage to be part of the ruling class. Whether we speak of the English rule in Ireland or the Roman rule of Greece, or the 1% vs the 99%, it does not pay to be the worker/vassal/servant/slave. Imperialism of the past generally went hand in hand with economic exploitation.

While other nations do threaten our stability as a nation, the reasons for intervention would be worldwide stability - and we are not alone in our desire for that stability. It is neither our "burden" as the article states or our sole burden. Most of the world has a vested interest in seeing that the world does not self-destruct.

If the author is simply trying to say that none of us can afford to sit back while the world self-destructs before us, well, DUH. This has nothing to do with imperialism/empire and the like.