Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on November 15, 2006, 07:09:59 am
-
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDM1ZmQ0YzI0NGM0YzIxN2YyNGVmN2RlNmE4OGFkNDU=
Oh if only it were so. Victor Davis Hanson (basically a neocon with a thin veneer of scholarly respectability) laments the tragic consequences of the US losing in Iraq:
But, in fact, I fear it could be worse than that the perception of impotence that galvanizes enemies. If we lost in Iraq and fled, it would not be the perception at all, but the reality of power that would be gone, in the sense the United States would never in our lifetime intervene successfully again on the ground abroad-convinced it would inevitably lose.
If only that were true. But I fear that this particular bull has a pathalogical need to charge at stuff, regardless of its chances of success or the justness of the cause, and will continue doing so for quite some time longer.
But the next step would be the complete loss of public confidence, in the fashion of the French, that we even could win a war if we had to. And then watch out. Great powers, like the largest animals, have a small central nervous system that directs their enormous limbs and sinews. And when it goes—call it public confidence in one's civilization—then armies tremor, enervate, and, Europe-like, wither away.
Somehow, Western civilization is equated with the divine right to police the world and impose one's will on poor brown-skinned people overseas - if that collapses, our entire civilization wouild lie in ruins. And the great America would wither away into a sorry state, just like poor, starving, wartorn Europe. Oh wait.
-
maybe america could buy a brain?
shure theyr military tech is uber, but half if not more of theyr population still uses 56k dial up ffs
the LOWEST connection speed you can imagine using here is what? 2 MB?! at the cost of a sandwich per month :)
12 MB and the needs of the people come first ! :D
-
Hah! Where would be a neo-con article without a needless dig at France? Racist ****wit.
-
Dont use the words American + Empire together, it offends my sense of history :P
-
Short is the memory of people. American interests or their power does not simply vanish overnight. It didn't take many years after Vietnam until programming was back as usual.
-
Pbhh. Iraq got flattened in less than a month... it's only when we tried to change a several-thousand-year culture overnight that we ran into problems. America is great at killing people and blowing stuff up; nation-building is what we (and probably everybody) stink at.
-
Didn't do a half-bad job with Japan and Germany.
Maybe it's when you let greedy short-sighted idiots run empires is when there's a problem?
-
Maybe it's when you let greedy short-sighted idiots run empires is when there's a problem?
What could possibly be wrong with doing that?!
-
Pbhh. Iraq got flattened in less than a month... it's only when we tried to change a several-thousand-year culture overnight that we ran into problems. America is great at killing people and blowing stuff up; nation-building is what we (and probably everybody) stink at.
So Japan and Germany are not really old? The bottom line is that while America can defeat a third world country's hopelessly obsolete army, it couldn't rebuild a country that was more or less intact just after the invasion because of an incompetant government.
-
Dont use the words American + Empire together, it offends my sense of history :P
It offends them too, that's half the flipping problem. They have an empire they refuse to accept exists, and therefore refuse to take responsibility for.
-
Dont use the words American + Empire together, it offends my sense of history :P
It offends them too, that's half the flipping problem. They have an empire they refuse to accept exists, and therefore refuse to take responsibility for.
Deniability FTW
-
I deny that statement.....
non-starter.
-
Didn't do a half-bad job with Japan and Germany.
So Japan and Germany are not really old?
Points taken.
I read somewhere that there are only two ways to maintain an empire. One is the Roman way, which is to crush them militarily and enslave a large part of their populace. The other is the British way, which is to play off the different factions against one another. The U.S. is doing neither.
-
I read somewhere that there are only two ways to maintain an empire. One is the Roman way, which is to crush them militarily and enslave a large part of their populace.
if the US did that, what would be the point of liberating them in the first place?
-
What's the point of "liberating" them anyway? It's not like they want us there any more than the other guy.
-
it seems to be from my interpretation of history that empires fall shortly after a push for expansion. rome, japan, germany, britain, all held big empires for a time, only to have them collapse. most of the time a sensable state is formed as the nation turnis its attention inwards to its own problems (the exception being rome, which became a religious empire instead). i see it as an essential part of a country's maturation. while all the countries i mention have grown up to a degree, the us is still an angsty adolescent, waiting to be whipped into adulthood. the power vaccume will allow another country to take its palace as world power (china is looking to take that spot). hopefully one buy one nations will go through this process and in the end create a world thats fairly stable. assuming somone doesnt decide to launch a bunch of nukes in the process.
-
Rome fell to the Visigoths and it's own corruption, the British Empire fell to the dual enemies of a world war and US determination to dismantle it.
Japan and Germany were rather small blips in comparison to The Roman Empire, British Empire or the modern US "Empire".
Edit: But a more stable world is also a slower one. Advances in both the development of technology and society as a whole are driven by empires, not individual nations, and thus when you remove the empire you remove the driving force behind the whirlwind like developments of the 19th and 20th centuries.
-
So, what exactly makes up this American Empire? I hear the term thrown around a lot, but I don't think there is much basis to it.
-
Lots of power outside of its national borders. That's my defintion of empire anyway, or you can use "bully" if that's more to your liking, or "hyperpower" or "hegemon" or any of a thousand names.
Fact is, the US has power over sovereign nations which it should not have, which have no basis in international law and which no one has over the US. There are exceptions and double-standards as to what is acceptable because of the US' position as a dominant power. It dominates culturally, economically, politically, militarilly and so on.
-
Japan and Germany were rather small blips in comparison to The Roman Empire, British Empire or the modern US "Empire".
Germany didn't have big of an empire, but it still had the best army in the world and was considered to be the most advanced civilization in the early 20th century.
-
The main definition of Empire, as I understand it, is one central culture being enriched by the exploitation of other cultures that they have overpowered. And exploitation can mean anything from Cheap Labour to resource mining. For example, the British exploited Indias resources quite terribly, Rome collected Tithes, for America I suppose it's Oil among other things, though they all saw other countries as a source of cheap labour.
However, it should be held in mind that also, in all these cases, there was an 'echo' being reflected back, forms of governance, architecture, infrastructure etc. Empires do take far more than they give, but they usually do give, even if it's unknowingly.
-
So, what exactly makes up this American Empire? I hear the term thrown around a lot, but I don't think there is much basis to it.
Unlike the territorial holdings that the British and Roman Empires before it were able to gain, the "American Empire" as it has been coined is rather something else. Its a cultural exporter in terms of different products. American movies and products are sold the world over appearing in most countries. In some countries, American products...particularly movies, have completely destroyed the local industries with the higher budget American alternatives (for instance Hollywood).
You also have American military power which is able to project its power virtually anywhere in the world in a very capable fashion. As mentioned, nation building in Iraq takes something else but when it comes to putting firepower on the enemy the US Military is a superb and capable force. It does have some effect of providing stabilization in some areas where it would otherwise not. Disengagement from the entire world would definitely cause regional problems. This is both politics and military in those particular cases.
Plus the American economy being one of the largest in the world.
So there very much is a economic, political, military powerhouse in the "American Empire". Its not the same as the Roman or British Empires...those are essentially outdated concepts that don't work in the modern world. Not as it is right now anyways.
-
The main definition of Empire, as I understand it, is one central culture being enriched by the exploitation of other cultures that they have overpowered. And exploitation can mean anything from Cheap Labour to resource mining. For example, the British exploited Indias resources quite terribly, Rome collected Tithes, for America I suppose it's Oil among other things, though they all saw other countries as a source of cheap labour.
anyone notice how many of our products are imported from countries we were formerly at war with or at least some hostilities exist / have existed. ive seen prefab furnature made in nam and korea, we use electronics made in japan (at least we did back in the 80s), drive german cars, little flags made in pakistan, more products i see come from china or russia. it wont be long untill we start seeing stuff labeled made in iraq :D
-
So, what exactly makes up this American Empire? I hear the term thrown around a lot, but I don't think there is much basis to it.
Cultural and military hegemony. Cultural, in the worldwide dissimilation of US brands, products, and even ideas (like political systems and even the left-right alignment of the current US government). How many governments use US products like Ms software as a key part of their daily runnings? (for example)
Military, as in seeking to maintain the ability to strike and destroy any country in the world (which, with the end of the USSR, no country has), and additionally with sufficient military & political might to render any opposition (i.e. political through the UN as with Iraq) ineffective.
And economy, of course.
Oh, and also mentioning monitoring of global communications (exactly what type & scope is unclear, but it's the clear intent) via Echelon and space domination programmes.
-
anyone notice how many of our products are imported from countries we were formerly at war with or at least some hostilities exist / have existed. ive seen prefab furnature made in nam and korea, we use electronics made in japan (at least we did back in the 80s), drive german cars, little flags made in pakistan, more products i see come from china or russia. it wont be long untill we start seeing stuff labeled made in iraq :D
Sorry did I sleep for the last 10 years or something? When has the US ever had hostilities with Pakistan? :confused:
-
Just to point this out;
The only problem with the US "empire" collapsing is that much of the world's politics (both bad and good) are dominated by US influence. For instance, Japan: the US protects Japan, which allows them to keep a minimal military and no nukes. If the US nuclear umbrella simply went away and left Japan there, how much higher is the likelihood of a North Korean attack? Or Taiwan - how much more likely is it that China would simply take them over if the US had no power to enforce it's will.
Now, granted, the US does a lot of bad things with it's power, but if you look at the bad you have to look at the good. The US is a major stabilizing power throughout most of the world (with exceptions here and there; such as the Middle East and South America).
-
So it's a major stabilising force except where it's a major destabilising force. :D
-
Basically, yea :D
Except it stabilizes most of the (developed and developing) world, while destabilizing (relatively) small parts.
-
Actually, the Japanese have been asking the US to leave Okinawa for quite a few years, they should have left a long time ago according to the agreement but there always seems to be another reason to stay. It's actually a rather large bone of contention between the two countries. The actual plan was for the Japanese military to take over once it was deemed strong enough, and unfortunately, crimes commited by a small number of Marines have aggravated the situation.
Though, in all fairness, the situation is a lot closer to being resolved than it was 10 years ago.
-
Just to point this out;
The only problem with the US "empire" collapsing is that much of the world's politics (both bad and good) are dominated by US influence. For instance, Japan: the US protects Japan, which allows them to keep a minimal military and no nukes. If the US nuclear umbrella simply went away and left Japan there, how much higher is the likelihood of a North Korean attack? Or Taiwan - how much more likely is it that China would simply take them over if the US had no power to enforce it's will.
Now, granted, the US does a lot of bad things with it's power, but if you look at the bad you have to look at the good. The US is a major stabilizing power throughout most of the world (with exceptions here and there; such as the Middle East and South America).
Japan is the world's second biggest economy - this alone shields them from any attack by the likes of China. As for North Korea exacting bloody revenge on the Japs, the US protection doesn't matter one way or another. If they're crazy enough to smuggle a nuke and detonate it, they're looking at a Biblical-level response anyway, regardless of whether US troops are stationed on Okinawa. As for Taiwan...well, sometimes you've got to accept a ****ty situation. Taiwan has to learn to handle its own affairs, and will most likely have to face peaceful integration into mainland China at some point anyway.
If I regime can not sustain itself under its own power, why is it right to prop it up with US influence? Why should certain governments be protected from instability, even if they deserve it (Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc) and others be subject to destabilization, even when they don't deserve it (Venezuela, Belarus etc)?
What I am fundamentally against is one nation's self-proclaimed right to exert its influence globally, regardless of whether it uses that for good or evil. If you accept that the law of sovereignty is null and void when the big kid on the block decides so, you are leaving your fate in his hands. And on his whims, you can be helped or harmed. This means that you trust him to always do the right thing, which is a trust that no one deserves.
-
As for Taiwan...well, sometimes you've got to accept a ****ty situation. Taiwan has to learn to handle its own affairs, and will most likely have to face peaceful integration into mainland China at some point anyway.
Yes, because China has such a peaceful method of integrating with countries that it feels it needs to.
If I regime can not sustain itself under its own power, why is it right to prop it up with US influence? Why should certain governments be protected from instability, even if they deserve it (Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc) and others be subject to destabilization, even when they don't deserve it (Venezuela, Belarus etc)?
Because Egypt and Saudi Arabia are in one of the most volatile areas in the world where a destabilized government could lead to war between an entire region and one of the best-equipped, nuclear-armed nations in the world, likely resulting in ethnic genocide or otherwise mass murder. Oh, and oil.
Venezuela has oil, but not as much as Saudi Arabia. Plus, they don't have the capability to spark an international incident on the scale of Middle Eastern countries. It's all a matter of priorities.
What I am fundamentally against is one nation's self-proclaimed right to exert its influence globally, regardless of whether it uses that for good or evil. If you accept that the law of sovereignty is null and void when the big kid on the block decides so, you are leaving your fate in his hands. And on his whims, you can be helped or harmed. This means that you trust him to always do the right thing, which is a trust that no one deserves.
While I agree with you to some extent, what besides the US should control the world? A weak confederation like the UN that apparently can't control it's own member nations outside of barking at them? Large-scale, regional alliances such as NATO, the EU, or the Arab League, that, under the guise of mutual defense, would engage in the same old conflicts, only on a much more massive scale? While I'm not saying that total domination by the US is the right way to handle world affairs, I currently see no other viable alternative unless the UN really gets its act together.
-
Just to point this out;
The only problem with the US "empire" collapsing is that much of the world's politics (both bad and good) are dominated by US influence. For instance, Japan: the US protects Japan, which allows them to keep a minimal military and no nukes. If the US nuclear umbrella simply went away and left Japan there, how much higher is the likelihood of a North Korean attack? Or Taiwan - how much more likely is it that China would simply take them over if the US had no power to enforce it's will.
Now, granted, the US does a lot of bad things with it's power, but if you look at the bad you have to look at the good. The US is a major stabilizing power throughout most of the world (with exceptions here and there; such as the Middle East and South America).
This I would agree with. I've read a lot of articles recently about how just having US soliders in South Korea, not actually doing anything at all in particular, is enough to keep the whole region stable as the US has no obvious territorial intentions or disputes and so the rest of the parties involved in the area use that force to maintain the status quo which is generally favorable to everyone except North Korea.
-
Japan is the world's second biggest economy - this alone shields them from any attack by the likes of China. As for North Korea exacting bloody revenge on the Japs, the US protection doesn't matter one way or another. If they're crazy enough to smuggle a nuke and detonate it, they're looking at a Biblical-level response anyway, regardless of whether US troops are stationed on Okinawa. As for Taiwan...well, sometimes you've got to accept a ****ty situation. Taiwan has to learn to handle its own affairs, and will most likely have to face peaceful integration into mainland China at some point anyway.
Of course the US protection matters. If it wasn't for the US protection, NK wouldn't have to worry about such an immediate and swift response to it's attack. Plus, Japan having the biggest economy, - I don't think that'll help much when China hits an economic speed bump and wants an almost free boost to it's economic standing.
The last thing about Taiwan...what? So you're saying that all smaller nations should simply bow down to a bigger nation, simply because it doesn't have the military force to do otherwise? Taiwan is a democratic nation, and thus protected under the US umbrella - which has a self stated purpose of protecting democracy (which is a good thing, IMO).
If I regime can not sustain itself under its own power, why is it right to prop it up with US influence? Why should certain governments be protected from instability, even if they deserve it (Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc) and others be subject to destabilization, even when they don't deserve it (Venezuela, Belarus etc)?
The first part I can answer, the second part I can't. Because, like nuclear1 said - some places need propping up, otherwise the whole area will collapse and spark a global conflict.
What I am fundamentally against is one nation's self-proclaimed right to exert its influence globally, regardless of whether it uses that for good or evil. If you accept that the law of sovereignty is null and void when the big kid on the block decides so, you are leaving your fate in his hands. And on his whims, you can be helped or harmed. This means that you trust him to always do the right thing, which is a trust that no one deserves.
The US isn't necessarily violating a nation's sovereignty if said nation agrees to have US troops stationed in it (which I know SK does, pretty sure Japan does in some areas). Plus, it's not like the US is actively pursuing territory expansion in Asia. Like IceFire said, they're there to keep the status quo - they're not violating anyone's sovereignty by standing there and looking menacing.
-
Of course the US protection matters. If it wasn't for the US protection, NK wouldn't have to worry about such an immediate and swift response to it's attack. Plus, Japan having the biggest economy, - I don't think that'll help much when China hits an economic speed bump and wants an almost free boost to it's economic standing.
The last thing about Taiwan...what? So you're saying that all smaller nations should simply bow down to a bigger nation, simply because it doesn't have the military force to do otherwise? Taiwan is a democratic nation, and thus protected under the US umbrella - which has a self stated purpose of protecting democracy (which is a good thing, IMO).
First of all, North Korea has literally no friends among nations. If they took the unprecedented move of attacking any country with a nuclear weapon, the response would be devastating no matter what. The US is allied with Japan regardless of whether US troops are present, so the US response would be identical either way.
Spreading democracy is good, so long as it doesn't impede a nation's right to choose whichever political system it wants, including an undemocratic one. Who is it that proclaimed democracy (and more specifically Western-style representative democracy) to be the holy standard to which all should bow?
What I'm saying is that if Taiwan can't fight it's own battles, it has no inherent right to hide under anyone's skirt. There are plenty of small countries that have to stand up to bigger and more powerful ones, and do so successfully with a mix of diplomatic, military and economic measures. Imagine is China took it upon itself to dictate to the US how it should manage its relations with Canada? Wouldn't that come off as mighty arrogant?
The first part I can answer, the second part I can't. Because, like nuclear1 said - some places need propping up, otherwise the whole area will collapse and spark a global conflict.
Global? Don't be dramatic. Europe fought constantly for centuries, and in the end it was Europe alone that decided it needed stability and unity. Propping up unpopular regimes only deepens the resentment of their population. The Middle East is today in much the same situation as Europe or more recently Asia, meaning there's plenty of war and insrability to go around. But like Europe and Asia, they will eventually figure out that they have to co-exist, and all will be well.
Yes, because China has such a peaceful method of integrating with countries that it feels it needs to.
Hong Kong. Macau.
Anyway, the chances of Taiwan and China waging war and pretty small I would say. The US can't protect Taiwan forever, and Taiwan simply can't stand up to China in sheer numbers. Which means that at some point they'll agree to unify with mainland PRC, if they are offered half-decent terms (which they probably will, because China would do anything to get Taiwan)
-
What I'm saying is that if Taiwan can't fight it's own battles, it has no inherent right to hide under anyone's skirt. There are plenty of small countries that have to stand up to bigger and more powerful ones, and do so successfully with a mix of diplomatic, military and economic measures. Imagine is China took it upon itself to dictate to the US how it should manage its relations with Canada? Wouldn't that come off as mighty arrogant?
Anyway, the chances of Taiwan and China waging war and pretty small I would say. The US can't protect Taiwan forever, and Taiwan simply can't stand up to China in sheer numbers. Which means that at some point they'll agree to unify with mainland PRC, if they are offered half-decent terms (which they probably will, because China would do anything to get Taiwan)
What is your alternative? Throw them to the wolves? You vastly overestimate Taiwan's desire to reunify. Their most recently elected president was elected on a platform of specifically Taiwanese nationalism. They have increasingly ceased to identify with China. They have increasingly become their own entity. And they have increasingly made preparations to fight to maintain their independence if that's what it takes. You might recall the submarine issue from some time ago; it was a smaller part of an effort upgrade their military capablities across the board. It's kind of hypocritical to go on about self-determination and then say that once they've self-determined if someone says otherwise hahaha they're ****ed. More to the point it would invalidate your entire argument.
On the original point, it is worthwhile to recast this thread's original question. As has been repeatedly stated, the US "empire" (which is perforce the wrong word for it) is not based upon military might, as has been repeatedly stated in this thread. It is based upon economic power, cultural power. A military "defeat" would not damage this base in the slightest. Regardless of your objections, your original assumption is wrong. People thought the same thing about Vietnam. It did not happen then, and there is no reason it should happen now.
-
I never said that a defeat would spell an end to the American empire (or whatever you prefer to call it), I only said that that was what certain supporters of said empire are predicting.
And I agree completely that the US's power depends far more on its economy than on its military. A defeat may, for a short time, make the US more reluctant to intervene militarily in any country that can hold its own (say, any country over 10 million people). But what is and will eventually destroy US power abroad is the fact that other nations are developing economically, and along with that militarilly. Look at Iran. If Iran is forced into a compromise, it won't be because they fear a US invasion or even airstrikes, it will be because they are threatened with economic harm.
By the way, I completely support Taiwan's right to sovereignty and self-determination, and by no means welcome China's moves to re-integrate it. But if sovereignty is to be upheld in any meaningful way, if it is to be enshrined as a sacred right, then it must be defended on the basis of law. eventually, when China grows more prosperous and democratic, as it likely will, Taiwan won't have any particular reason to insist on independence any more, other than a historical grudge. On the issue I Taiwan, I am not nearly so opposed to the US position as elsewhere, since there does exist a credible threat from a far superior foe. But the same is not true in the vast majority of other cases where the US chooses to intervene.
-
Spreading democracy is good, so long as it doesn't impede a nation's right to choose whichever political system it wants, including an undemocratic one. Who is it that proclaimed democracy (and more specifically Western-style representative democracy) to be the holy standard to which all should bow?
While you are right that a nation should be allowed to choose, name one government that fairly represents and protects the needs of its citizens outside of a democracy, representative democracy, or republic.
What I'm saying is that if Taiwan can't fight it's own battles, it has no inherent right to hide under anyone's skirt. There are plenty of small countries that have to stand up to bigger and more powerful ones, and do so successfully with a mix of diplomatic, military and economic measures. Imagine is China took it upon itself to dictate to the US how it should manage its relations with Canada? Wouldn't that come off as mighty arrogant?
Because the US isn't 100% determined to annex Canada and cite some bullshot historical connection as to why they did. Additionally, I would love to know of these small countries that successfully protect themselves against bigger, badder, hostile nations bent on annexation, because the only one that I can think of would be Tito's Yugoslavia.
The first part I can answer, the second part I can't. Because, like nuclear1 said - some places need propping up, otherwise the whole area will collapse and spark a global conflict.
Global? Don't be dramatic. Europe fought constantly for centuries, and in the end it was Europe alone that decided it needed stability and unity. Propping up unpopular regimes only deepens the resentment of their population. The Middle East is today in much the same situation as Europe or more recently Asia, meaning there's plenty of war and insrability to go around. But like Europe and Asia, they will eventually figure out that they have to co-exist, and all will be well.
I don't see how you can compare the two times. Yes, Europe fought for centuries and slugged it out to finally get into what they are today, but today the world is a whole lot smaller, and with certain regions' importance and proximity to major nations, such a spark would create a catastrophe. If the Arabs attacked Israel and Israel were to retaliate with nuclear weapons or even a large-scale conventional counter, what do you think would happen to the world's oil? Or if North Korea went ape**** and decided to nuke Japan; how do you think China or Russia would view that?
And before you say it, yes, wars were costly in the past, but they didn't carry with them the chance for making land totally inhabitable through thousands of years of radioactivity or hundreds of millions of deaths in a very short span.
Yes, because China has such a peaceful method of integrating with countries that it feels it needs to.
Hong Kong. Macau.
Anyway, the chances of Taiwan and China waging war and pretty small I would say. The US can't protect Taiwan forever, and Taiwan simply can't stand up to China in sheer numbers. Which means that at some point they'll agree to unify with mainland PRC, if they are offered half-decent terms (which they probably will, because China would do anything to get Taiwan)
Funny how you didn't mention Tibet. Of course, let China take control of former European colonies that have a ridiculous amount of wealth at their disposal, and sure China will want to go through peacefully, but when its a colony of poor religious folk who simply want to be left alone, make them a part of the PRC, whether they like it or not!
Point is, the Taiwanese are so determined to remain sovereign and independent that they will fight for it. They simply won't merge with the PRC because the Chinese offer them good terms. Macau and Hong Kong aren't historical precedents for Taiwanese reunification, plain and simple.