THE Oil Empire Thread (merged)

[Kaj]

A few scattered thoughts:

The British superpower's decline was actually rapid and violent. After WWII, it is true that the transition of power to America was peaceful, but that is because the war itself depleted and indebted Britain, as well as most of the continent. Prior to the the first WWI, when the two countries were more equal, America had very serious plans to fight the UK, including contingency plans to overrun British-controlled Canada. That may have been the story of the 20th century, if the Germans hadn't existed to threaten British hegemony (and the US with the Nazi upsurge in Latin America).

How the US will decline will depend very much on a whole host of unpredicatble factors. As we approach chaos and tipping points, individual decisions really start to matter. Leaders and policies and crises become much more important.
So it could go in numerous directions. However, the historical lesson is that empires generally do not go out without some kind of a bang.

A lot depends on the culture of the empire too. Specifically, the one hope that the empire might 'die' peacefully would be if the social power of immigrants and women, who are generally more anti-war, continues to grow, and feel politically mobilised.

The Revolution in Military Affairs is a worrying development, along with the militarization of space and forward 'defensive' anti-missile basing. The plan is for the US to be able to win a nuclear war. In the current cultural climate, if they suceed in making the nuclear option non-risky for themselves, I do believe they will use it if their hegemony is threatened.

[Dukkha]

I can't see America going gently. It has a vast military which has been used for a lot more trivial concerns than national survival and unfortunately the momentum of violence will, I'm sure, not dissipate that quickly. As kaj said, Britain actually fought rather a lot of wars to hang on to its empire, even after it had been so emasculated by WW2. I suspect, for much of the world, things are going to be rather bloody and largely through no great fault of their own.

[mos6507]

Prior to the the first WWI, when the two countries were more equal, America had very serious plans to fight the UK

Where do you come up with this b.s.?

[mos6507]

Britain actually fought rather a lot of wars to hang on to its empire

The UK had a real empire, with real colonies, not the least of which the 13 colonies in north america which broke away and became the US. The US does not. That's why I reject the notion that the US is an empire in a strict sense.

[mos6507]

The plan is for the US to be able to win a nuclear war. In the current cultural climate, if they suceed in making the nuclear option non-risky for themselves, I do believe they will use it if their hegemony is threatened.

If you felt threatened by nuclear attack, you'd seek technology to protect yourself. It's been this way throughout the entire history of warfare. No country will intentionally leave themselves vulnerable to attack if technology is available to protect themselves. The ABM treaty was kind of an anomoly. The genie is out of the bottle.

The US will not nuke another country without some credible pretense. There is no way a US president is going to come on national TV and say "We are nuking China because our hegemony is threatened".

I know po.com is a haven for US-bashers, but this is ridiculous.

[mos6507]

Japan's fall also probably has some lessons for us.

So that means the quality of our cars is going to go up and we'll start making consumer electronics again?

[BigTex]

Britain actually fought rather a lot of wars to hang on to its empire

The UK had a real empire, with real colonies, not the least of which the 13 colonies in north america which broke away and became the US. The US does not. That's why I reject the notion that the US is an empire in a strict sense.

We have different kinds of colonies. Think of them as virtual colonies with veneers of self-rule. Every country with which we have a trade deficit is a colony. OPEC is one large unruly colony. Mexico is a colony. Iran used to be a colony, but broke away.

Look at where U.S. troops are stationed around the world and look at where U.S. tax and trade dollars go. Those are U.S. colonies.

[Dukkha]

The UK had a real empire, with real colonies, not the least of which the 13 colonies in north america which broke away and became the US. The US does not. That's why I reject the notion that the US is an empire in a strict sense.

Perhaps but then I don't suppose the British empire was an empire in the same sense as the Mayan empire. The fact remains that the US has grossly infringed - and continues to grossly infringe - the sovereignty of numerous nation states to their detriment and the benefit of the US and it does this by the wanton use of military and economic force. The fact that it doesn't often install direct governors in its colonies doesn't release it from the accusation of being an empire.

[Kaj]

Prior to WWI, when the two countries were more equal, America had very serious plans to fight the UK

Where do you come up with this b.s.?

Various history books from the my university library, but its common knowlege now; do keep up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red

War Plan Red was a military document outlining a hypothetical war between the United States and the British Empire (the "Red" forces). It was developed by the United States Army during the mid 1920s, and was officially withdrawn in 1939, when it and others like it were replaced by the five "Rainbow" plans created to deal with the Axis threat.

Indeed, this was after WWI, even after an allied war effort. Tensions before the war were even higher before the war. There is a long history of antagonisms between the UK and US in the Carribean which lead to naval demonstrations of force by both sides, documented by Historians such as Walter La Feber. Those confrontations might have blown into war.

It is not surprising. Hegemons have always clashed with rising powers.

[Kaj]

Like many words, the word 'empire' in an evolving term and is in dispute.

But since the US is increasingly being called an empire, both by critics of US foreign policy, and by many of the mandarins of power, the neocons themselves, the US' hegemony is almost certain to go down in history as empire.

[mos6507]

"War Plan Red is notably generalized and lacking in detail, indicating its low priority in the planners' eyes."

Hegemons have always clashed with rising powers.

And people love to propagandize against dominant forces out of spite and envy.

[mos6507]

But since the US is increasingly being called an empire, both by critics of US foreign policy, and by many of the mandarins of power, the neocons themselves, the US' hegemony is almost certain to go down in history as empire.

They don't do it because it's the proper term. It's pure hyperbole. They call the US an empire because it has negative connotations, you know, photoshopping Cheney as Darth Vader with his mask off at the end of ROTJ.






I've never heard that the Neocons themselves call the US an 'empire'.

And guess what, these guys are out of power in less than a year. Now we're going to have to find all new ways to dehumanize our government.

Also, people who are "critics of US foreign policy" often are the type who feel the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" hence a sympathetic tone towards Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, etc... After all, they are good guys because they provide a check and balance against US hegemony, right? They can do no wrong, right? This sympathetic tone extends towards gleeful speculation about military attacks against the US, mushroom clouds over major cities, wanton death and destruction. So I don't like this moral hyporcisy.

The bottom line is people love to simplify their problems with a scapegoat. They turn their sense of compassion off in order to follow their fanatic ideology.

[Kaj]

I've never heard that the Neocons themselves call the US an 'empire'.

Maybe then you should read up on them. Heard of Kaplan? He is probably the biggest name in Neoconservative public discourse. He wrote a book called "imperial grunts", quite un-ironically, about American soldiers.

Preview and interview:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511u/kaplan-interview

In Kaplan's eyes, America is engaged in building and maintaining a global military empire—an empire that he argues is a necessary and undisputable fact of the twenty-first century. Yet despite the similarities American imperialism may have to that of empires of the past, in this case the underlying mission is a softer one. Instead of the oppressive colonial domination that characterized other empires, Kaplan describes America as spreading its imperial influence through humanitarian aid efforts such as well-digging, medical care, and school construction.

Of course, every empire has maintained an exceptional position in their rhetoric which makes them better than others. The facts usually contradict their claims.

Another website quotes one of Kaplan's other works:

"only through stealth and anxious foresight" can the United States continue to pursue the "imperial reality [that] already dominates our foreign policy," but must be disavowed in light of "our anti-imperial traditions, and... the fact that imperialism is delegitimized in public discourse"...

So he does not shy from the view that the US as an empire, but he knows that this should not be mentioned about in public because the American people would revolt against this notion. It seems a bit bizarre, then, that he is so brazen about it as to publish it himself, but there you are.

And guess what, these guys are out of power in less than a year. Now we're going to have to find all new ways to dehumanize our government.

What's dehumanizing about criticising imperialism? Oppressive empires are a very human trait. Certainly, this does not just apply to the US, but since the US just so happens to be the global hegemon of the day, it might just be relevent to critique them.

Unfortunately, the neocons won't be out of power any time soon, nor their ideology.
Clinton is a neocon in all but name, and so is her chief advisor Penn
http://withinempire.wordpress.com/2007/ ... -a-neocon/
Neocons are also defecting to Obama, who is also pretty much a neocon
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 752381.ece

[mos6507]

Oppressive empires are a very human trait.

Taken to its ultimate extremes, all government can be interpreted as 'oppressive'. Any group of people who aren't getting what they want out of life can knee-jerk accuse the government of holding them back. It's very easy to criticize. It's not easy to propose anything better. Everything has its pros and cons.

Neocons are over because Bush has a 19% approval rating. If there is a continuation of the neocon agenda there will be mass riots.

Some people's vision of the US has been so branded into their skulls via Bush that they find it hard to imagine change may come.

[Chesire]

A lot of pissant band wagon american haters , are in for a rude surprise before spring 2010.

The decline of american real estate values and the resulting unemployment . Will bitchslap the rest of the world for a good 25 % unenployment in addition to what they already have. So expect a round the world drop in sales , tax revenue and public services . its going to be comical to watch them all cry when the American wallet snaps shut. The diaspora from hopeless populations who can no longer afford to buy the basics of life . Will be even more entertaining , think you have immigrations problems now ? Wait till a lot of third worlders decide they have nothing to lose and march on industrial countries en masse.

[Cid_Yama]

<i>And people love to propagandize against dominant forces out of spite and envy.</i>

More like spread the truth out of righteous anger with the hopes for retribution.

These people are not just going to lie down in the streets and die.

Once they are hungry enough, and cold enough, and angry enough, they're gonna come looking for you and those like you.

The French Aristocracy thought themselves safe within their estates, until they were seperated from their heads.

The Romanovs thought themselves safe until they were taken from their home and slaughtered.

Fleecing the people and selling all their food out of arrogance will only get you dead.

If anything, history should tell you, NO ONE is rich enough or powerful enough to be safe from an angry starving population. (no matter how complacently ignorant and sheep-like they may appear beforehand.)

[alokin]

Do you see any revolutionary movements in the US?
More atop I could read neocons are dead and there will be riots
if they go on with their neocon politics, were is the movement?

The worst threat of the dying Empire ( I call a nation Empire if their leader take their dirty hands in everything) is war. The US military projects can't be called defense. But I don't see any movement against it. The election campaigns are not about foreign politics about possible wars. all what I can see is possible wars in Iran, Pakistan, Venezuela, China, Russia, .....the list can be completed.

It's really desperate, the most powerful nation of the world is ruled by by intrigued, dishonest junta lacking any vision of the nation. the rest of the world is affected by their decisions, the outcome of the elections etc, but we have not the right to vote.

[Cloud9]

Let's see, my choice is some where between Obama, Hillary and McCain. Not one of these folks lives like I do, or believes what I believe. Some choice.

[Cid_Yama]

Both the French and Russian Revolutions were spontaneous uprisings brought about by not enough food. It is only <b>after</b> such a revolution that groups come forward and attempt to take credit for it and seize the reigns of power. Kill <b>them</b> when they show themselves and you might end up with a free people.