2024 thoughts
- Thread starter IUNorth
- Start date
I've never seen so many hand wringers as the Pubs on this board.
This is a bunch of old guys screaming at the storm.So you're saying that the Cooler is kabuki theater too . . .
. . . and here I thought I was saving the world . . . .
. . . most of the "conservatives" here would want to defend the notion of the USofA as an empire . . . you get that it's never been intended to be an empire . . . .
And I thought you said those IU grads were neighbors of yours, and visited Washington, IN.
It can't be both of those things . . . .
I believed then, and still do, that for the most part our intentions were good. Execution on the other hand....
Regarding our nation building/stopping the spread of communism goals. So, Vietnam, Iraq/Afghanistan, various economic embargos/sanctions/entanglements.
I'm a bit too young to comment directly on Vietnam though my dad was there. I take a lot from his experience and opinions.
I think our faults lie on not committing fully or not really defining our mission at times? Like in Afghanistan, our original mission was (fill in the blank). Ten years later is was (fill in the blank). Nearly 20 years later..
Word salad, but i think I'm trying to say, if we wanted to be the world's police we should have done a better job of it or not at all. However, I'm not sure "not at all" was ever an option during the post WWII years with the rise of communism and the threat it presented.
Empires are expensive endeavors. We are currently an American Empire. I think we became that after WW2 when we basically stepped in and took on the responsibility of a bunch of former European empires and made them our own. The Middle East being a glaring example of this. See also: Vietnam.
Our founding fathers (or some of them at least) were very keen on avoiding alliances with old world powers because of what that typically meant. We have avoided that logic and now have ourselves entangled in potential conflicts all over the globe. We butt heads with Russia because of Europe. We butt heads with China because of Taiwan or Japan. I think the argument could be made that we made the world safer for many people while making if much more dangerous for ourselves. Another issue we have is that many of our allies are merely protectorates. The U.S. has been the military force for the Western "Globalists". The Euros will bitch about our military adventurism but they always seem to profit off it. In return for their defense, they dislike us, they don't provide for their own defense, and our presence serves as a contention point for a nuclear armed foe.
I really think that we the people and our representatives need to step back and evaluate just how beneficial all of these relationships we have with the world are. Yes, if we step back the Chinese will try to fill the void, but I think it would wreck them. So keep the nuclear stockpile up to date, keep the Navy and Air Force strength and decrease the standing Army. Make the marines an amphibious force again and reduce their armor. Keep the National Guard. A professional standing Army demands use.
Edit: And this is not a call for isolationism, it is a call for cost benefit analysis and trying to use soft power. The Chinese are buying up ports and then taking them over when countries default. Could we not provide an alternative to that which is mutually beneficial and does not involve us shooting up places or needing a long term military presence. And on rare occasions when we do use the military, it has to be smart but brutal applications.
Last edited:
lol Nothing is more amusing than a liberal trying to define what most conservatives would want.
. . . and since 1989 has been what . . . habit? Reflex?
Viet Nam was very much a reflexive moment for the US . . . my dad was a WWII vet and his attitude was there wasn't anything the US couldn't do . . . and since then we've learned Marv's maxim that you just don't fight a ground war in Asia.
Million dollar question. I think we might look back at the 90's and, given a chance to do it all over, would have receded militarily around the world. Perhaps let the Middle East devolve into whatever it was going to devolve (or evolve) into and work with/around it.
Hindsight and all.
European countries have also not gotten themselves into wars - other than in Serbia/Herzogovina/Croatia - since the US stepped into empire. So there's that. And you're right, the US serves as a check on Russian and Chinese empire aspirations . . . that might be worth the expense and effort . . . but we can't play nursemaid to every country that gets into trouble - see the Russian Crimea takeover.
Looking back - and 20/20 hindsight is so much clearer - we should have blitzed Afghanistan to make them think about 9/11 forever and gotten the hell out. A "psychological lien" as it were . . . without having to incur the cost beyond the initial blitz.
Last edited:
I think of the smart but brutal applications as wars of subjugation . . . I think we're talking about the same thing.
I usually agree with you. But not about this. The USA is decidedly not an empire—unless you think the 50 states united for common cause is one. We have allowed the world to take advantage of us and defer to us to butt heads with others. i don’t think that is empire building. We ask for nothing in return nor do we claim any authority over them.
I think we are a neo-empire. We are not an empire in the classical British Empire sense, we allow for quite a bit of autonomy in our vassals but we definitely do put the screws on to bend them to our will when it becomes imperative for our interests to do so. We do not generally ask for land as compensation as prior empires would, we ask for markets. We don't ask for soldiers, we ask for global (U.N.) blessing of our military endeavors.
I think we are a type of empire, just not the classical one. We have been the world's uber-hegemon since the fall of the Soviet Union. We exert our influence everywhere. We have active duty troops stationed in 150 countries. There are 195 independent countries in the world. We are literally all over the world. We have 150,000 to 200,000 people overseas and that does not include the Navy.
Explained: The US military’s global footprint
It is an unprecedented power spread, but Washington has established military bases and deployed troops across all seven continents.
www.google.com
We can quibble over the meaning of empire and I would freely admit that we are not Great Britain where the sun never sets on our empire. However, we are a power where the sun never sets on our military. We have about as many people overseas as France has in their entire active duty military.
Good news is that 40% of Democrats now believe Biden should be impeached and 57% of all voters believe Harris is unqualified to be President. People are finally awake.
Neo empire? I need to cogitate about that.I think we are a neo-empire. We are not an empire in the classical British Empire sense, we allow for quite a bit of autonomy in our vassals but we definitely do put the screws on to bend them to our will when it becomes imperative for our interests to do so. We do not generally ask for land as compensation as prior empires would, we ask for markets. We don't ask for soldiers, we ask for global (U.N.) blessing of our military endeavors.
I think we are a type of empire, just not the classical one. We have been the world's uber-hegemon since the fall of the Soviet Union. We exert our influence everywhere. We have active duty troops stationed in 150 countries. There are 195 independent countries in the world. We are literally all over the world. We have 150,000 to 200,000 people overseas and that does not include the Navy.
Explained: The US military’s global footprint
It is an unprecedented power spread, but Washington has established military bases and deployed troops across all seven continents.
We can quibble over the meaning of empire and I would freely admit that we are not Great Britain where the sun never sets on our empire. However, we are a power where the sun never sets on our military. We have about as many people overseas as France has in their entire active duty military.
Part of what might make us look like a neo empire could be the sheer weight of the US economy and finance industry on the world.
i don’t agree that military presence is evidence of a neo empire either. We obviously don’t use military to influence local politics—except for maybe certain dysfunctional dictatorships. Certainly not in Europe, South. Korea or Japan. When Trump announced his intention to reduce our troop presence in Germany, the Germans as well as the GOP and Democrats pitched a fit. The K-Street lobbyists‘ phones we’re ringing off the hook with that one. That’s good old fashioned American legalized corruption at work. A lot of money is made off of our military spending. Bases are more about rent-seeking money grubbing than empire building.
Our military does not influence elections in Japan, Germany, and South Korea now because our government/military basically established their governments in the 1940's and 50's. They have autonomy but we set them up to be in our sphere of influence. That is where the classical empire lines are blurred. We (collectively with our allies) set up the western aligned world in our image figuring that our particular system (and a military occupation) would keep them in our sphere of influence. We then exported our culture and tied our economies together so there is no longer the need to militarily occupy them, we have baked their attachment to us into their systems.
That’s a curious argument. It implies that but for our post WWII involvement, Germany and Japan would have chosen a different political and economic path. Not sure you can make that stick.
We made Japan give up the emperor. Their constitution was written by MacArthur and staff after he had rejected their original attempt. Now they may have eventually came our way, but we totally forced their system of government on them.
Complete conjecture on my part, the Germans would probably have been unified under the Soviet system had we left. As it were, the West German constitution only went into effect after the allies (U.S., Britain, France) signed off on it.
We cannot really argue what might have been if not for our involvement but we do know what was. And we inarguably drove the direction of those governments after WW2.
I will drive through any part of Indianapolis and do not feel threatened in my car.
I can't say the same about Chicago.
You yourself said it's 'just' the south side that is a problem. Well, the south side is a pretty damn big part of the city.
That's like saying, well, parts of Indianapolis are dangerous, but Carmel is really nice!
Regarding your edit, I used to believe that, too - that Democrats are not bad people and there are some things that made it hard to vote for them.
But after seeing them with Trump in office, I don't know of a single Democrat, save maybe Manchin, that didn't sell their soul to the Democrat party line. 99% of them are cowards and won't go against their crazy leadership, even if it means destroying the country.
I’ll stipulate that much of our Post WWII policy was to blunt soviet expansion. That is far different from empire building. We had a lot of influence in helping draft the constitutions of the post Soviet republics also. That wasn’t because we are empire builders. It was because we were and are pretty good at it.
I've said it before, but if you can justify troops in S. Korea, Japan, Europe, and other locations for over 70 years, you should be able to justify 5,000 troops in Afghanistan.
We didn't lose a ground war in Asia. Choosing to leave is not 'losing'.
We may not have achieved the political goals we wanted, but being in 'Asia' had nothing to do with it. That's an old canard that's been repeated since the Eisenhower administration.
Japan didn't seem to have a problem conquering 'Asia' until the morons attacked us.
Yeah, remember all the claims we were just going for oil in Iraq and natural resources in Afghanistan?
We've really profited over those countries, eh?
I don't disagree, but with the invention of the internet, social media, etc., it drastically reduces the pool because people who have even minor things they don't want brought to public attention will pass, those that don't feel like having their families harassed, subjected to protests or vandalism, etc. are unlikely to be willing to run. They likely already have a good thing going and feel like they are making an impact in other ways.
Nah, Ben Shapiro. I'm not sure anybody can stomach that condescending 5'3" prick.
For fun, there is a podcast called "Behind the Bastards" which focuses on the worst people in history, how they got there, etc. Yes, it has a lefty bent but so far left that they hate everyone. However, they do a nearly full scale reading of Ben Shapiro's fiction novel. It.Is.Amazing-
-ly awful. I mean truly amazing. I don't think he meant it but it subliminally reveals all of his little man insecurities. They have some fun with it.
I like Shapiro, he’s easily spoofed and I enjoy those that spoof him as well. But he’s at least original and his thoughts are his own.
What I can’t stand are drafters like Charlie Kirk or Candace Owens who simply copy and paste what people like Sowell and Shapiro say for a living.
Similar threads
