PDA

View Full Version : Modern Western Imperialism



M1A2U2
03-09-2004, 05:02 PM
A New Kind of Imperialism
Many people in this world criticize the United States for its “police” like nature around the world. With our armed forces spread throughout the world many would even call us and Empire. When people hear the word empire, England’s Victorian era colonialism immediately comes to mind. Thoughts of persecution, violence, and revolution come to mind. However, I find this as being the problem with calling the US an empire. The US does not rule certain land with an iron fist killing anyone who protests its role, nor does it strip countries of their natural resources then leave them dry and helpless as England did throughout Africa after World War II. When England pulled out of southern Africa, the result was genocide, ethnic cleansing in Rwanda. England did nothing to stop this bloodshed; instead they turned a blind eye and let the UN succeed in doing nothing.
When England pulled out of Iraq in 1946 they divided it into 2 countries, with the smaller one being Kuwait. By not securing a stable Government in Iraq, their parliament was overthrown by a dictator who led the country into decades of war and pain. With their division of Iraq and Kuwait, Iraq ended up invading Kuwait in 1990. England did send troops this time but only because of a UN resolution and all too late to save the million and a half people Saddam Hussein had already killed. Instead the United States had to get involved and restore stability to the area.
It is clear though history how empires are evil but it is also clear how the United States seems to feel a strong desire to do the opposite of what England did. After WW2, the US spent billions of dollars restoring the nations it had occupied and to this day remains in these now stable countries. Currently many new events are happening that are creating a new kind of empire, an empire of humanitarian aid and freedom. In 1993 the US deployed to Somalia to stop the genocide there and provide massive amounts of humanitarian aid. In the second half of the nineties the US deployed to the Balkans again giving massive amounts of humanitarian aid. In 2001, the US quickly destroyed the terrorist harboring Taliban in Afghanistan, but instead of leaving the country in ruins, it went in, installed a democracy and is still providing aid to its “colony”.
Liberia was a former colony of the US, founded by freed slaves. A large civil war has recently erupted there and the US has taken it upon itself to insert itself into the country and return stability. In Iraq, thanks to unwise British planning, the US decided to remove its dictator from power. But in Iraq and Liberia we are seeing different kinds of occupations then we are used to seeing in imperial history. For instance, the occupiers are being greeted by the citizens with flowers, American flags, hugs, kisses, thumbs up, and pro American slogans. This has never been seen in the case of the British empire. An occupying army would spring a reaction of terror to the local civilians.
America’s global involvement can be called imperialism, but it is a new kind of imperialism, and imperialism where the occupier does not take resources from its colonies but instead gives resources to its colonies and sees to it that they are made into stable independent countries. As we move into the future, for the second time in history, one nation alone stands as the only imperial power on earth, but this nation keeps its empire free.
[/quote]

Javehn
03-09-2004, 05:06 PM
i'll decide that .
And your mom is hot .

Maverick77
03-09-2004, 05:10 PM
i'll decide that .
And your mom is hot .


pics?

Parzival
03-09-2004, 05:12 PM
GO WEST! woot I support the west countries, and I will always do. I support the former England too.

EvanL
03-09-2004, 05:12 PM
***** in ******. :oops:

Javehn
03-09-2004, 05:15 PM
i'll decide that .
And your mom is hot .


pics?

http://www.jonballard.com/images/the%20list/Smith1.jpg
***** in ****** :oops:

EvanL
03-09-2004, 05:20 PM
i'll decide that .
And your mom is hot .


pics?

http://www.jonballard.com/images/the%20list/Smith1.jpg
***** in ****** :oops:
***** in ****** :P :P :hug:

Javehn
03-09-2004, 05:24 PM
woot :hug:

Shrink have helped him now
M1A2 back
MILF his mommy yea

Maverick77
03-09-2004, 05:32 PM
****, nice mom

EvanL
03-09-2004, 05:33 PM
m1a2- Zayin gadol ;)

Javehn
03-09-2004, 05:34 PM
m1a2- Zayin gadol ;)

rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
:hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug:

Sixgun Symphony
03-09-2004, 05:45 PM
Imperialism?

To some extent, but nothing like the European powers. Personally, I would love for the US to adopt a Swiss style policy of armed nuetrality.

cut
03-09-2004, 05:58 PM
A New Kind of Imperialism
Many people in this world criticize the United States for its “police” like nature around the world. With our armed forces spread throughout the world many would even call us and Empire. When people hear the word empire, England’s Victorian era colonialism immediately comes to mind. Thoughts of persecution, violence, and revolution come to mind. However, I find this as being the problem with calling the US an empire. The US does not rule certain land with an iron fist killing anyone who protests its role, nor does it strip countries of their natural resources then leave them dry and helpless as England did throughout Africa after World War II. When England pulled out of southern Africa, the result was genocide, ethnic cleansing in Rwanda. England did nothing to stop this bloodshed; instead they turned a blind eye and let the UN succeed in doing nothing.
When England pulled out of Iraq in 1946 they divided it into 2 countries, with the smaller one being Kuwait. By not securing a stable Government in Iraq, their parliament was overthrown by a dictator who led the country into decades of war and pain. With their division of Iraq and Kuwait, Iraq ended up invading Kuwait in 1990. England did send troops this time but only because of a UN resolution and all too late to save the million and a half people Saddam Hussein had already killed. Instead the United States had to get involved and restore stability to the area.
It is clear though history how empires are evil but it is also clear how the United States seems to feel a strong desire to do the opposite of what England did. After WW2, the US spent billions of dollars restoring the nations it had occupied and to this day remains in these now stable countries. Currently many new events are happening that are creating a new kind of empire, an empire of humanitarian aid and freedom. In 1993 the US deployed to Somalia to stop the genocide there and provide massive amounts of humanitarian aid. In the second half of the nineties the US deployed to the Balkans again giving massive amounts of humanitarian aid. In 2001, the US quickly destroyed the terrorist harboring Taliban in Afghanistan, but instead of leaving the country in ruins, it went in, installed a democracy and is still providing aid to its “colony”.
Liberia was a former colony of the US, founded by freed slaves. A large civil war has recently erupted there and the US has taken it upon itself to insert itself into the country and return stability. In Iraq, thanks to unwise British planning, the US decided to remove its dictator from power. But in Iraq and Liberia we are seeing different kinds of occupations then we are used to seeing in imperial history. For instance, the occupiers are being greeted by the citizens with flowers, American flags, hugs, kisses, thumbs up, and pro American slogans. This has never been seen in the case of the British empire. An occupying army would spring a reaction of terror to the local civilians.
America’s global involvement can be called imperialism, but it is a new kind of imperialism, and imperialism where the occupier does not take resources from its colonies but instead gives resources to its colonies and sees to it that they are made into stable independent countries. As we move into the future, for the second time in history, one nation alone stands as the only imperial power on earth, but this nation keeps its empire free.


what a load of bull****.

Not long ago I remember the brits on here arguing that the US should go into Liberia when the us was considering it, because it was their colony and the UK and France had done the same for the likes of sierra leone and cote d'ivoire.

If you think the US is the first to do all to improve the countries they occupy then you are wrong, ever heard of "the white man's burden"? Also the only thing that has held India together over this past 50 years is the railways, and who do you think put that there? For which they are very thankful by the way.

Also the whole point of an empire is to get resources out of an occupied territory. Why do you think the US chose Iraq over other dictatorships that need decapitating? It's exactly the same reason that us Brits had it first time round. Every world power leaves a trail of **** behind them. The US supported terrorists against the Soviet Union in afghanistan, they turned around and bit you in the ass.

If it weren't for the UN, the US would have a more traditional empire if the republicans were in power long enough.


When England pulled out of southern Africa, the result was genocide, ethnic cleansing in Rwanda. England did nothing to stop this bloodshed; instead they turned a blind eye and let the UN succeed in doing nothing.

this part in paticular is a lie, rwanda was never British despite Rhodes' efforts, it was part of German East Africa and after WWI it became part of the Belgian mandate.

The reason why no-one went in to rwanda was a mix of reasons, the UN as always couldn't do anything because, there function is to decide whether to allow a war or not, not to start them. And because of (notoriously vague) rules drawn up by effectively the US after WWII, no-one can stop a civil war, supposedly because they're internal affairs.

Another problem with rwanda is that they were doing their ethnic clensing with machetes far quicker than the nazis did in WWII. Take all this into account and all countries are as much too blame as each other and certainly this has nothing to do with the British.

This kind of inflamatory bull**** should be banned.

cut
03-09-2004, 06:01 PM
Imperialism?

To some extent, but nothing like the European powers. Personally, I would love for the US to adopt a Swiss style policy of armed nuetrality.

and watch petrol (gas to you) prices go through the roof?

Sixgun Symphony
03-09-2004, 07:08 PM
and watch petrol (gas to you) prices go through the roof?

Lots of oil up there in Alaska. The Arabs would be forced to downsell if we tapped it.

cut
03-09-2004, 07:25 PM
and watch petrol (gas to you) prices go through the roof?

Lots of oil up there in Alaska. The Arabs would be forced to downsell if we tapped it.

I think your government is saving that till they get desperate, if it was worth doing I think they would, wars and nation building are stupidly expensive for the returns and you lot don't even control all of it :lol: