United States an Empire?

[Techno_Union]

I remember when we invaded Iraq that many people called us an empire. Would we really be considered an empire? What did we do that was really so imperialistic?

Also, what would a nation have to do in order to be considered an Empire short of actually having "empire" in their name? And I am sure that there are more nations out there that would be considered an empire before the US.

[Darth Wong]

I remember when we invaded Iraq that many people called us an empire. Would we really be considered an empire? What did we do that was really so imperialistic? Also, what would a nation have to do in order to be considered an Empire short of actually having "empire" in their name? And I am sure that there are more nations out there that would be considered an empire before the US.

From Merriam-Webster:

Empire

1 a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control
2 : imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion

It's largely a function of the sheer power wielded by the nation-state, and the US certainly qualifies in that regard.

Perhaps a more relevant definition is this one:

Imperialism

1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence.

The most important one is #2, and US foreign policy meets that definition.

[Tragic]

Long live the empire.

[Shaidar Haran]

Ya'll bow down before Emperor Dubya.

[Solauren]

So, which one is the Sith Lord?
Bush, Powell, or Cheney

I'm voting on Cheney. I mean, he's never around. Obviously he's practicing his Sith arts, or moving into clones or something

[Psycho Smiley]

Ya'll bow down before Emperor Dubya.

[WoT reference] And people laughed when RJ said the Seanchan had Texan accents. [/Wot reference]

[Stormbringer]

Ya'll bow down before Emperor Dubya.

[WoT reference] And people laughed when RJ said the Seanchan had Texan accents. [/Wot reference]

Maybe he knows something we don't.

[Joe]

It's not a black or white thing. Is the U.S. the most imperial country in the world? Most certainly. Does the U.S. practice imperialism on the scale of classic Empires like the British Empire and the Roman Empire? No, certainly not. Even during the Cold War, we practiced imperialism lite. Rather than invading countries and directly ruling them, we put in place various SOBs, like the Shah, and propped up existing SOBs, like the House of Saud and Diem, to do our bidding, and this didn't really work out very well. If you want to be truly imperial, you can't half-ass it.

We tend to place the bulk of our overseas troops in wealthy countries we're friends with (Japan, Germany, S. Korea) with their consent (for the most part), which is in sharp contrast to the British Empire. And we don't really have a great deal of control over these countries, either; some of them speak out against us on a fairly regular basis, and they all have thriving economies distinct from the U.S economy. As for Afghanistan, that will probably be temporary, and as for Iraq, I don't know. We'll want to keep troops there for a long time to keep Boy Assad, the mullahs in Iran, and the House of Saud scared, and for several years at least we'll probably have a great deal of influence within the new government.

More than anything else, the U.S. is perceived as imperial because it's so damn huge. We make up something like 30 percent of the world economy and spend 40 percent of the world's military spending. We're like a big fat guy with body odor in a small, hot room (no negative comparison intended, just making an analogy); when we do something, it's going to affect everyone, regardless of our intent.

[Alex Moon]

Ya'll bow down before Emperor Dubya.

[WoT reference] And people laughed when RJ said the Seanchan had Texan accents. [/Wot reference]

In life and death, we serve the Blood. Y'all.

Seriously, when did RJ say they had a Texan accent?

[Alex Moon]

Perhaps a more relevant definition is this one:

Imperialism

1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence.

The most important one is #2, and US foreign policy meets that definition.

There's hardly a nation today that doesn't qualify under that definition.

[Trogdor]

Americans have a history is disliking colonialism and conquest of other peoples. Not that we haven't done it, of course, just that more Americans frowned upon it when we did. We seem to much prefer just subverting the governments of other countries economically to increase our wealth. All hail the almighty dollar!

[The Penultimate Ninja]

We're not just an empire, we're a Hegemony. Take those buggers down!

[Darth Wong]

Perhaps a more relevant definition is this one:

Imperialism

1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence.

The most important one is #2, and US foreign policy meets that definition.

There's hardly a nation today that doesn't qualify under that definition.

Nonsense; you are confusing influence with control. In order to exert a measure of control over foreign nations, you must have a lot of influence, ie- more than most countries can muster.

[Stormbringer]

That depends on the country. A lot of European nations have the influence to badger their former colonies into behaving. Russia and China both carry big sticks. Simply being able to exert a measure of control over another country doesn't make an Empire.

[Cornelius]

Well, we do control a huge union of states as well as a multitude of foreign territories. We occupy other areas by military force. As wong said, we have tremendous economic control as well.

Japan is still refered to as an Empire, albeit a horse of a different colour.
Americans just do not like the term Empire applied. We are a "Union."

[Axis Kast]

Nonsense; you are confusing influence with control. In order to exert a measure of control over foreign nations, you must have a lot of influence, ie- more than most countries can muster.

Certain nations may be unable to effect it in the face of competition, but it is a policy of all. We may be among the few who can claim empire, but we are joined by every other nation out there in desiring and angling for it.

[Sarevok]

The anti-imperialist rants do get funny at times. Especialy some WSF people who declared war against the Empire.

[McC]

Imperial States of America or the Imperial United States sounds much better than the United States of America to me

[Sarevok]

ISA sounds too much like Interstellar Alliance.

[0.1]

So what... the U.S. fit the definition of an empire according to some people. Big deal.

The simple fact is, when you're the top dog in any arena, everybody takes a shot at you, and secretly hope that you fall flat on your face. The simple fact is you have something they don't, and if there isn't a little bit of envy or jealousy involved, then the individual isn't human. It's simple human nature, there is always something that the next door neighbor had and you wish it was yours. People take pleasure (hidden from public view) to see their enmies, or sometimes, even their friends(for whatever perverse reasons) suffer.

The same can be said for nation states, be it the Canadians, the Europeans, or some tiny little island nation in the South Pacific. The mentality is, yeah, our closest ally is the most powerful nation on the planet, but really, we could do a better job anyday. After all, if someone waved a magical wand tomorrow and made... say Cameroon the foremost power in the world, do you think the people of Cameroon would object? Hardly.

[PainRack]

It's not a black or white thing. Is the U.S. the most imperial country in the world? Most certainly. Does the U.S. practice imperialism on the scale of classic Empires like the British Empire and the Roman Empire? No, certainly not. Even during the Cold War, we practiced imperialism lite. Rather than invading countries and directly ruling them, we put in place various SOBs, like the Shah, and propped up existing SOBs, like the House of Saud and Diem, to do our bidding, and this didn't really work out very well. If you want to be truly imperial, you can't half-ass it.

Not really. The Romans certainly played local politics to align pro Roman leaders in tribal areas, and the British similarly installed pro British leaders who will accept British Advisors, or Residents in India and so on and forth.
The difference so far is that America has no intention of incorporating the territory physically into American rule.

We tend to place the bulk of our overseas troops in wealthy countries we're friends with (Japan, Germany, S. Korea) with their consent (for the most part), which is in sharp contrast to the British Empire. And we don't really have a great deal of control over these countries, either; some of them speak out against us on a fairly regular basis, and they all have thriving economies distinct from the U.S economy. As for Afghanistan, that will probably be temporary, and as for Iraq, I don't know. We'll want to keep troops there for a long time to keep Boy Assad, the mullahs in Iran, and the House of Saud scared, and for several years at least we'll probably have a great deal of influence within the new government.

Actually, this IMO is what makes America deserving of Empire statement. There is no difference between the forward position of US troops, and the British military bases in the far flung Empire. America twisted other nations arms into accepting American forces, either through bribes,sorry, economic and military aid, diplomacy or common need.
Furthermore, if a nation request American intervention, America intervened, just as the British Empire intervened in Palestine, India, Egypt, Malaya, etc etc.
American military might is also an important tool of her foreign policy, being used to project American power to either protect, or overwhelm. The only difference is that unlike any other country, the USA can maintain an invasion force at sea for an indefinite period of time, through the amazing thing called the MEU, which possess sufficient firepower to overwhelm any Third World, and many First World nations.

[Joe]

Not really. The Romans certainly played local politics to align pro Roman leaders in tribal areas, and the British similarly installed pro British leaders who will accept British Advisors, or Residents in India and so on and forth.

Right, Imperialism Lite. We installed dictators, puppet governments, and whatnot to do our bidding. The difference is that said SOBs can easily become a liability since you aren't there directly controlling them, as we learned with Saddam. An SOB is an SOB, even if he's your SOB.

Actually, this IMO is what makes America deserving of Empire statement. There is no difference between the forward position of US troops, and the British military bases in the far flung Empire. America twisted other nations arms into accepting American forces, either through bribes,sorry, economic and military aid, diplomacy or common need.

No it doesn't. Like I said, the rich allies we have got garrisoned aren't controlled by the U.S. and for the most part they are very much glad that we're there. And we leave when asked, like we did in the Phillippines (there are currently troops there for the WoT, however).

And yes, there is a difference between the current position of the U.S. and the 19th-century British Empire; the British Empire garrisoned poor countries/regions with low economic development and treated them exactly as what they were - colonies - as opposed to picking up the defence tab for many of its wealthiest allies like we do and not really behaving like traditional imperialists. Neither Japan, S. Korea, Germany, or KSA (which is moot anyway, since we're withdrawing from the KSA) are American colonies.

[JME2]

So what... the U.S. fit the definition of an empire according to some people. Big deal.

The simple fact is, when you're the top dog in any arena, everybody takes a shot at you, and secretly hope that you fall flat on your face. The simple fact is you have something they don't, and if there isn't a little bit of envy or jealousy involved, then the individual isn't human. It's simple human nature, there is always something that the next door neighbor had and you wish it was yours. People take pleasure (hidden from public view) to see their enmies, or sometimes, even their friends(for whatever perverse reasons) suffer.

The same can be said for nation states, be it the Canadians, the Europeans, or some tiny little island nation in the South Pacific. The mentality is, yeah, our closest ally is the most powerful nation on the planet, but really, we could do a better job anyday. After all, if someone waved a magical wand tomorrow and made... say Cameroon the foremost power in the world, do you think the people of Cameroon would object? Hardly.

Uh-huh. So Iraq is jealous because like both countries have (or in Iraq's case, had) a tyrant in power, only the US tyrant is the stupidest man alive?

[Guardsman Bass]

I remember when we invaded Iraq that many people called us an empire. Would we really be considered an empire? What did we do that was really so imperialistic? Also, what would a nation have to do in order to be considered an Empire short of actually having "empire" in their name? And I am sure that there are more nations out there that would be considered an empire before the US.

From Merriam-Webster:

Empire

1 a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control
2 : imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion

It's largely a function of the sheer power wielded by the nation-state, and the US certainly qualifies in that regard.

Perhaps a more relevant definition is this one:

Imperialism

1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence.

The most important one is #2, and US foreign policy meets that definition.

By the first definition of empire, the United States Federal government could be considered an empire over the states.

[Gunshy]

Uh-huh. So Iraq is jealous because like both countries have (or in Iraq's case, had) a tyrant in power, only the US tyrant is the stupidest man alive?

That's such moronic bullshit, comparing Bush to Saddam. I'm not in favor of the war, or Bush, but it's foolish to put Bush in the same league of a despot who killed thousands of his own people. Frankly, it cheapens any opposition to Bush, and the War when people start mouthing off these tired diatribes.

Just so we're clear...from m-w.com Tyrant:

1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty
2 a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power

You're right about Saddam, but dead wrong on Bush.