In Defense of Empire

In Defense of Empire (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Phydeaux -> In Defense of Empire (3/25/2014 10:57:31 AM)
Pretty thought provoking article I generally agree with http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/in-defense-of-empire/358645/?utm_content=buffer97fc7&utm_source=twitter.com

mnottertail -> RE: In Defense of Empire (3/25/2014 11:05:47 AM)
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/in-defense-of-empire/358645/ There it is in non-mobile, it is an article which I generally disagree with.

Tkman117 -> RE: In Defense of Empire (3/25/2014 11:56:04 AM)
Love how they gloss over many of the negatives of empires and focus on the positives. Thats good journalism right there [8\|]

DaddySatyr -> RE: In Defense of Empire (3/25/2014 12:03:11 PM)
Empires are always good ideas. Ask any Romans, Greeks, Turks, etc. ETA: Screen Captures RULE!

Owner59 -> RE: In Defense of Empire (3/25/2014 1:27:12 PM)
Yup.....just ask pootie,the right`s new hero...... "Vladimir Putin praises Stalin for creating a superpower" http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article2601457.ece

JeffBC -> RE: In Defense of Empire (3/25/2014 2:38:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Pretty thought provoking article I generally agree with http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/in-defense-of-empire/358645/?utm_content=buffer97fc7&utm_source=twitter.com Yeah, empires always look pretty cool when you imagine yourself the imperial power. They look less fun when you're the one being occupied. Sadly, corporatism has gutted our economy so even if most of us wanted to go gallivanting across the globe annexing nations we don't have the money for it. At least right now I'm all for doing that good conservative thing and tightening our financial belt a notch or two. #1 place to start that is with the military given the size of the expenditure there.

Phydeaux -> RE: In Defense of Empire (3/25/2014 8:29:48 PM)
Obviously you didn't read the article As it says much the same

Whiplashsmile4 -> RE: In Defense of Empire (3/25/2014 9:09:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 Love how they gloss over many of the negatives of empires and focus on the positives. Thats good journalism right there [8\|] Pretty Amazing isn't it? It's articles like these which take advantage of what people don't know...and spew out a "Readers Digest Condensed Version" of so called history. It perhaps will leave people with the sensation of "feeling really smart" after reading it too (sadly).

Lucylastic -> RE: In Defense of Empire (3/26/2014 10:54:14 AM)
Even readers digest had standards

Owner59 -> RE: In Defense of Empire (3/26/2014 11:47:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Obviously you didn't read the article As it says much the same You mean not take the race-baiter`s bait? Ignoring bigotry is easier than one would think.....[;)]

Politesub53 -> RE: In Defense of Empire (3/26/2014 5:07:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Obviously you didn't read the article As it says much the same You mean not take the race-baiter`s bait? Ignoring bigotry is easier than one would think.....[;)] Thankfully some of us wont ignore it. While others lap it up as "truth" [;)]

Zonie63 -> RE: In Defense of Empire (3/26/2014 11:00:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Pretty thought provoking article I generally agree with http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/in-defense-of-empire/358645/?utm_content=buffer97fc7&utm_source=twitter.com Yes, I've come across quite a few similar articles lately (one written by John McCain) favoring a continued policy of US interventionism around the world. A few excerpts from the article: quote: 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. "Is an imperial-like foreign policy sustainable?" Is that really the question here? Perhaps Americans should be asking "What's in this for us Americans?" What do we get out of it? The U.S. government's primary responsibility is to the U.S., not to "the globe." quote: No other power or constellation of powers is able to provide even a fraction of the global order provided by the United States. U.S. air and sea dominance preserves the peace, such as it exists, in Asia and the Greater Middle East. American military force, reasonably deployed, is what ultimately protects democracies as diverse as Poland, Israel, and Taiwan from being overrun by enemies. "We're the only ones who can do it," so therefore we have an obligation to do it. We're not doing it with any thought of personal gain; it's all out of the goodness of our hearts. That's another commonly used argument. I agree with the author that simply declaring imperialism as "evil" is not a serious argument, but by the same token, simply declaring imperialism as "good" is also not a serious argument.

Politesub53 -> RE: In Defense of Empire (3/27/2014 6:01:01 AM)
Kirata posted a decent link for the Bush Doctrine, the outcome of which is starting to bite the west on the arse.

eulero83 -> RE: In Defense of Empire (3/27/2014 6:58:01 AM)
FR wow how much ignorance in one single article...

Artisculation2 -> RE: In Defense of Empire (3/27/2014 8:24:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Pretty thought provoking article I generally agree with http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/in-defense-of-empire/358645/?utm_content=buffer97fc7&utm_source=twitter.com If empires protect minorities, why didn't the American Empire protect the plains Indians apart from all the other native Americans? 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. The article blames the British for all the chaos in the middleeast. Partly that is true, Churchill's creating a country in an afternoon jibe was part of it. However, Jews were migrating to the Levant before the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the British mandate and the British were subject to both Jewish and Arab terrorism. Both sides blaming the British when both sides were led by terrorists. Protecting the North American colonies from the French and Spanish bankrupted Britain and then when there was no threat, the colonists complained about none existant tax. What really was at the base of the independence war was colonists were land hungry and wanted to advance into native territory which is exactly what they did after the war, when the new US expanded into an empire of its own. The best thing that ever happened to Britain was defeat in N America. Sadly, the British went off and built a sea empire having been released from the financial burden of the the N American colnies. All in all, it is better people stay at home and sort their own houses out.

Zonie63 -> RE: In Defense of Empire (3/27/2014 9:20:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 FR wow how much ignorance in one single article... Oh, that's not even the half of it. This is the kind of stuff American schoolchildren have been raised on since before I was born. It's very much ingrained in the U.S. political consciousness and commonly held perceptions of the outside world. This is not even an issue of "Democrats vs. Republicans," since both parties have enthusiastically embraced interventionist policies since World War II.

Yachtie -> RE: In Defense of Empire (3/27/2014 9:27:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Artisculation2 If empires protect minorities, why didn't the American Empire protect the plains Indians apart from all the other native Americans? If it's just a question of Empire, perhaps because the US Empire didn't find its roots till after WWII.

Artisculation2 -> RE: In Defense of Empire (3/27/2014 10:55:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Artisculation2 If empires protect minorities, why didn't the American Empire protect the plains Indians apart from all the other native Americans? If it's just a question of Empire, perhaps because the US Empire didn't find its roots till after WWII. Surely, manifest destiny was about empire. If the US wasn't about empire, it would still be the original 13 states.

eulero83 -> RE: In Defense of Empire (3/27/2014 11:12:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 FR wow how much ignorance in one single article... Oh, that's not even the half of it. This is the kind of stuff American schoolchildren have been raised on since before I was born. It's very much ingrained in the U.S. political consciousness and commonly held perceptions of the outside world. This is not even an issue of "Democrats vs. Republicans," since both parties have enthusiastically embraced interventionist policies since World War II. yes I'm sure, I gave this short answer because I really don't know where to start pointing out the mistakes and logical fallacies, one is that democracy is something new like it was invented in recent times, it's over 2500 years this word has the same meaning, Athene was a democracy, the roman empire started as a kingdom then an oligarchic republic, democratic republic, militar dictatorship, and in the end empire. The ottoman empire started ethnic cleansing of armenian greek and syrian minorities years before the nazist party's raise. The Austrian empire was what remained of the holy roman empire and it collapsed as soon as nationalism raised and they begun to touch minorieties rights, like imposing the german language, so the truth is as long as empires could give minorities their autonomy they could survive otherwise... well... it's war. And by the way there is a difference between being an empire and imperialism, people in iraq are not US citizens.

eulero83 -> RE: In Defense of Empire (3/27/2014 11:23:21 AM)
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.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125