War is composed of terrorism. Terrorism is violence for political purposes. War is the use of terrorism for its own sake as well as having the stated intention of ending terrorism by terrorising terrorists. It often fails that intention.
1 Like
Itâs perfectly simple.
- if the bomber is physically present at the explosion, then itâs terrorism
Good, moral armies are far above in airplanes dropping the bombs or far away launching the missiles. If you personally go to the location you wish to bomb putting your life at risk, then youâre a terrorist.
2 Likes
OMG!
Terrorism is the geopolitical equivalent of resisting arrest 
6 Likes
Inaccurate. Exerting influence isnât nearly the same as controlling a country. We have bases in South Korea, Turkey, Germany, and Japan to name 4 places. Are these anything other than sovereign nations?
Even the places recently invaded, like Iraq and Afghanistan are still ruled by their own people (albeit initially ones backed by the US). But there is no direct control now. They do not pay tributes and taxes to the US.
So no, the US isnât an Empire. Is it able to influence and exert military power in other countries? Yes, but again that isnât an Empire. They have no outright control of any of those governments. And again, many of not most of those governments want them there. Words have meanings.
1 Like
Come now, Gidget. You said South Korea:
Only the US presence prevents South Korea from going nuclear to protect itself against North Korea.
And, you think the govt of South Korea, especially, is independent?! Oh lordy.
2 Likes
I think part of the problem here is that you guys have a different baseline for what an empire/imperialism is. By and large I see a modern nationâs imperium as a sphere of influence past its borders where they exert influence but havenât got direct control and I think thatâs basically the frame of reference @milliefink is coming from (though her positionâs probably a bit more nuanced). Things like military bases are only part of that, economic, and cultural influences are also relevant. In that sense the US is an empire (as have been most historic empires which had a sphere of influence well past areas of direct control).
4 Likes
Well, yes. And then you asked:
How do you think those weapons got there in the first place?
South Korea doesnât have nuclear weapons.
And, you think the govt of South Korea, especially, is independent?!
Yes.
Sure, the US has plenty of influence. But itâs by providing a good deal thatâs in South Koreaâs best influence, not through dictating terms to a puppet government.
Facebook is a giant on the internet. A whole lot of people use it despite the privacy and security issues. That doesnât mean that theyâre forced to or that theyâve lost their independence or that theyâre forced to stay with Facebook. They simply find it a good deal despite the downsides.
1 Like
Pretty much, but yeah, I think itâs even closer to an empire than that. Just because it doesnât call itself one doesnât mean it doesnât control countries all over the world. It topples governments for the sake of its own eliteâs interests. It starts non-defensive wars with impunity. Its military squats in a self-interested manner in many countries where its only welcome because it has strong-armed or toppled the government and installed a compliant one.
As Yale historian Paul Kennedy put it, âFrom the time the first settlers arrived in Virginia from England and started moving westward, this was an imperial nation, a conquering nation.â
In MANY places outside the US, to think of the US as a de facto empire isnât at all controversial â itâs bloody (ahem) obvious. But as I said, the propaganda in the US about American democracy and benevolence and so on is so pervasive that few American citizens can even conceive of the US that way.
Hell, thereâs even a bog standard Wikipedia page on it, which says in part:
Stuart Creighton Miller says that the publicâs sense of innocence about Realpolitik impairs popular recognition of U.S. imperial conduct. The resistance to actively occupying foreign territory has led to policies of exerting influence via other means, including governing other countries via surrogates or puppet regimes, where domestically unpopular governments survive only through U.S. support.
8 Likes
The FBI is (supposed to be) a civilian law enforcement agency, but as it expands more and more into international jurisdictions, the question becomes whose law they are enforcing. Doing things mandated by US law, thatâs illegal on the soil itâs being comic ted on, can still be an act of war/terror/shock and awe.
I wish the distinction being made wasnât about war vs terrorism, but rather, âgood warâ vs âlaw enforcementâ. Armies function today along the same lines as back when city states were issuing the orders. But the city states have grown to encompass a global jurisdiction, without any uniform system of criminal law. Iâve been reading a lot lately about pirate fishing vessels that exploit these gaps, but malware vendors are a bether example hereâŚ
Bottom line, Sadam Hussein got at least a show trial, so thereâs at least the pretense of it being a legal action.
1 Like
Iâm not entirely sure it really matters if we meet some specific definition of the Latinate word empire. The British Empire and the Roman Imperium both called themselves empires, but they were quite different in a number of non-trivial ways. More relevant, IMHO, is whether what we as a nation are and what our government does abroad is moral, ethical, sustainable or even in our own ultimate best interests. People will differ in whether weâre an empire in a classical sense, but I think most Americans realize our foreign policy is neither moral, ethical, sustainable nor in our interests.
I suspect if America can be said to be an empire in the classical sense, itâs Corporate America, with politicians in the US and many other governments now in enthralled to the security exchanges and high financiers that are the new monied aristocracy. That in itself is actually a lot more frightening than the prospect of a new Rome. No longer is the empire seated in Washington or London or Moscow. Itâs now seated in the very fabric of oligopolistic commerce weaving the globe to the reigns of ever more concentrated but non-localized wealthâŚ
5 Likes
Some of us even live in the rest of the world and know how the US operates there. As an FYI though here in Japan the communists took issue with the security treaty in the past and there are ongoing issues related to the location of the USMC base in Okinawa, regular folks and those they elect want the US bases here far more than any possible alternative.
Not for nothing but you should see the crowds that turn out for the open base days. Young and old they show incredible positively.
Moral relativism just doesnât have much traction here.
2 Likes
Yeah, well, my baseline is, like, the definition of the word. Feelings donât change meanings of the word.
empire; plural noun:
- an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress.
Even removing the need for an emperor, we have a democracy, not a single authority. Like I said, we have influence and can strong arm with not just military but with trade practices, but EVERY country with some power can do that. We donât make their laws. We donât elect their leaders. We donât TAX them. We arenât out conquering and keeping land. Other than the handful of territories and DC, every thing under the direct control of the US has representation.
You COULD say the US has some Empire-like traits. And for sure you can point out some specific examples that if we continued on that path might have it fit the definition better. But I might have some cat like traits, doesnât make me an actual cat.
Ironically, to be a jerk in High School, I argued in History Class one day that the US was an Empire, knowing that it didnât fit the definition, but I twisted it around and had half the class convinced.
1 Like
Historically all the big successful empires have pretty much always allowed various levels of autonomy. In a sense, so do we. Until someone challenges us and then we send in the USMC and the corporations for reconstruction in the image we see fit. But the idea that because we donât exact a tribute from the king and therefore itâs not an empire is similar to the idea that we donât feed our cars grass and therefore theyâre not modes of transportation. Systems of government and power become obsolete and are replaced with similar systems. We have mass culture, modern communications, ICBMs, the projection of naval and air power through our carriers⌠but because weâre not walking into cities and beheading half the townspeople to set an example, it doesnât mean that we donât function in a manner very similar to, and with similar aims as, empires of old. I see no reason to get excessively literal about empire in the modern context to call it what it is.
I mean for one thing, why do you think people created and maintained empires in the first place? Itâs a lot of work. Why might those reasons have changed over time? In our current context, what would imperial aims look like and how might they be pursued? Why during the Cold War did we create the terms First, Second, and Third World? What did these imply?
God, I sound like my seventh grade history teacherâŚ
8 Likes
I agree with the rest of your comment, but Iâd like to see some polling on this. I hope thatâs true. Trump probably helped a bit by calling what we did in Iraq a big fat mistake.
Well played!
Lucky younger you.
4 Likes
Taxes or tributes show they are not just beholden to the US, but under their authority. If the US said to any of these countries, you have to pay us a tax, they would laugh their asses off. Because we donât control them.
Having influence isnât the same thing as control.
For the record, I agree we should dial it back. As my first post said, all those allies enjoy smaller defense budgets because 1) they have us bolstering their defense and 2) if something bad happened, they know we would send stuff to help. With the cold war over, a lot of those bases probably arenât NEEDED any more.
One could argue that we have reduced overall violence acting as World Police. Certainly our presence in Europe during the Cold War prevented a large scale war there again. Certainly the space race and ICBM development with the Russians meant no DIRECT conflicts between the two. But would the world look better if the US hadnât helped Korea? If they hadnât mettled in Vietnam? If they hadnât directly attacked Iraq or Afghanistan? Or would those places have ended up even worse off than now? I guess that is an argument for philosophers and historians.
1 Like
I have little to no relevant or educated opinion on whether the US is an empire, but this observation is so true it bears repeating. In the last sixty years how many wars have we started? It sure does seem like the US intervenes when it shouldnât, and doesnât when it should.
3 Likes
Having influence isnât the same thing as control.
So youâre saying that assassinating leaders, toppling governments, helping to rig elections, building and supplying weapons to compliant statesâs militaries, and starting non-defensive wars against countries that resist U.S. demands are just forms of âinfluenceâ?
I think thereâs a job out there for you, writing euphemisms for the mafia. Oh, and your potential employer has a name: The Federal Government of the United States.
5 Likes
No fault of your own, Iâd say. Telling us ordinaries how things really work would just be sand in the giant machineâs gears. Hereâs an excellent primer that I often recommend, itâs short, accessible, extremely clear, and aimed at the ordinaries:
3 Likes
Hay, when was the last time the US assina⌠Okay, when was the last government we toppl⌠Okay, when you say rig elections do you mean cheating, or more of a sailboat sorta thing?
(Can I get a sarcasm tag with a capital S)
5 Likes
We just want to help ensure that their ships of state are sailing smoothly. Right into, um, our own safe harbor. Where we can embrace them with our nuclear arms.
7 Likes
