[Smudger]

In terms of the US being an empire of course it is and the real question is how it will deal with its power fading over the next 50 years."

Interestingly enough, just yesterday I was reading a number of articles from the past few months suggesting London is rapidly recovering its place as world capital, at least from a financial point of view, taking back a few of the brass rings from New York. Interesting if, having welded the Anglosphere into 'the American Empire', the US ends up part of an effective 'New British Empire'.

By the 1970's with the Empire gone, Britain was known as the 'basket case' of Europe. The North Sea petroleum boom gave Britain that neo-conservative tyrant and Ronnie Raygun playmate Margaret Thatcher. Now with the North Sea in a relentless 14% annual decline your 'New British Empire' might, if lucky, once again reach across the Irish Sea.

I don't think so - empires are so passe, they went out of fashion in 1946! we're bigger than that now.

[Nickel]

Now with the North Sea in a relentless 14% annual decline your 'New British Empire' might, if lucky, once again reach across the Irish Sea.

And? The United States has been a net petroleum importer since the 1960s. That hasn't stopped them having a pretty good imperial run for the past 40 years.

You don't have to have oil to make a killing off of it. You just have to be one of the marketplaces for it. How many dealers grow their own poppies...? if you see what I mean.

[TheDude]

Fun read, this. What's with the user name, Plantagenet? Are you big on irony? Some kind of allusion to Alaska?

Wasn't there in Bush era a TV series based on exactly that scenario [USSR takeover of USA]?

That would be Amerika. Entertaining 14 hours if you like post-apoc TV.

[Nickel]

Fun read, this. What's with the user name, Plantagenet? Are you big on irony? Some kind of allusion to Alaska?

Wasn't there in Bush era a TV series based on exactly that scenario [USSR takeover of USA]?

That would be Amerika. Entertaining 14 hours if you like post-apoc TV.

Yeah, Reagan-era. 1982 or 1983, I believe. The right wing's answer to The Day After. There was also Red Dawn in the theatres a year or so later.

[pana_burda]

What other nations do you believe we have added to the United States?

There is no need to do an anexion; actually it is best for an empire not to do, so you can get the benefits (taking the wealth of those countries) without the inconvenients (no need to take care of their populations nor improving the infrastructures etc).
Others advantages of acting like that is that the empire can pretend to public opinion (domestic or global) that it is not an empire but a benevolent friend.

You wrote yourself the definition of an empire: it rules over several territories.
I'm surprized you can't see how the USA rules, overtly or covertly over a variety of territories around the world.

Plus, the neocons themselves claim, and are proud of it, that the USA is an empire.

You think Bolvia and Granada and Cuba and Mexico and Haiti are part of the United States?

Sorry, No.

Cuba indeed took independence from the USA in 1959 (and for that Cuba is under constant hostility from the USA since then).
Bolivia took independence in 2006 (and that caused it to be diabolised by US medias).
Grenada took independence briefly in the 1980's, and for that the United States invaded it with some 8.000 soldiers and marines.
About Haiti, the US overthrown the legitimare president Aristide not so long ago (with help of France); but haitians still voted vor a president of Lavalas party (the party of Aristide).
About Mexico, the current president is so servile to US interests that it is a shame.

So, as you can see, being "part of the USA" is not the question; being able to self-rule or not, is the question.

but these are all independent countries.

From the ones you cited, only Cuba (and now Bolivia, but with a not so certain future yet) are truly independent.
The others are not.
You are not truly independent when you cannot choose the policy you want nor make the laws you want because of fear of hurting US interests and being overthrown/assassinated/invaded.

It is slowly changing, and the regions is becoming more and more independent, following venezuelian leadership; but if you go some years ago, on the 1990s, then, with the exception of Cuba, all countries south of rio Bravo were truly ruled by the United States.

Many interesting concepts you handled out in your post. For instance, one of them, pictures Cuba (Fidel Castro) as a "new" Empire by the very many countries under its "rulings". However, the one emperor that springs up is hugo chavez by means of his petro-politics.

Bolivia, was named after Simon Bolivar, and its independence was historically achieved in Aug 6, 1825 yet you claim that happened less than one year ago. ¿What is your concept of "independence"?

Same applies to the HUGE ammount of petro-dollars hugo here receives, from the devil, EVERYTIME he wakes up in the morning, like clock-work. I believe the figure is around 200.000.000 buckaroos/day.

WOW!!!,... we ARE really independent, aren´t we?

Sorry I had to answer back this way but I can see not too many things/concepts are really fit to reality, my friend.

Ahh .... , IF you still wanna talk about ven "leadership", I am your man, mate! >smile<

[Alcassin]

pana_burda:

Bolivia - like what happened in Cochabamba, and why Bechtel bought every drop of water from the rain? Any sovereign country would privitize rain? Sorry - it was under corporate dictatorship with some briberies to local authorities.

Drug war and operation condor, were they independent policies of Latin American countries? Yeah, right...

Countries can be independent, but they are not sovereign. Independence doesn't mean that a guy comes somewhere with a flag and says - 'here is your government'. And what about puppet states, they exists. States-clients also. They are called independent, but they are not sovereign as they must follow the rules. They cannot be sovereign as more and more economic treaties were signed by the client-states. When Mosadegh or Allende were overthrown it was independent decision of its people? Yeah, right...

Neo-colonial model of independence looks like this - we are taking out our army, but we keep business which in extreme situations (when our interests is in danger) will elect president/king. It is independence as long as there is one government on one territory with its own population. Government is governing, not ruling. They may rule in other areas but do not touch our business.

Let me give you recent example of Chile - not many miles south from Santiago there is forestry corporation for paper industry, Nobody cares when this corp is removing people from their land - they can expand their business in expense of those communities, Chilean government doesn't care. Guess why?
It's perfect and stable democracy in Latin America. What would happen if the corp will threat that they are moving to Argentina? No kickbacks, bad international opinion, Chilean rating drops and so on. So let them expand! Let them grow!

Like Bechtel which got 25m $ for ending illegal contract in Cochabamba. With the help of Bolivian taxpayer.

Moreover - I wouldn't say it's American Rule and Order, Americans doesn't vote for it, but every campaign needs sponsors, and every business is lobbying (bribing). People who counts are they who give you money, not those who vote. Marketing and PR in depolitizated society matters not program or ideology.

[mos6507]

Empire as a term is kind of like racism. It has been applied so liberally as to lose its meaning.

If empire means being under the strong influence of a foreign power in some degree or another, the US is a colony of Saudi Arabia or China.

[holmes]

o what is our choice? dumb fuck utopian commie democrat globalists or republican commie democrat globalists? seems to me they all feed off of one another and are exactly the same POS.
Note to humans who feel the "other side" is utopia: Get off the crack pipe. Your brain is burned out. Get into rehab immediately.
Thank you and have a good day.

[holmes]

One needs to be skeptical of the authors of these kinds of posts. Usually they are being misled by the communist agenda. Or the other "parties" that are subserviant to the "manifesto". So I never jump hog wild into these agendas. becuase usually they are not really honest humans from the human race but minions of some scumbag "party of the people". Hello tis the people that are fucked up remember.

[holmes]

and anarchy is a great thing on paper. I love it and consider myself and anarchist deep down. However reality also is my forte. Anarchy will not build public transit or PO infrastructure. I understand the limits to anarchy. also big chunks of anarchists are being cloned by the communist agenda. Human condition is a bitch.

[basil_hayden]

That's the whole point holmes, anarchy won't build publlic transit, so the mutant zombies will have to stay home, and I'm already in the country. Yay anarchy!

[holmes]

Well I guess that it is good then. Well I am already there too. However I do have to work in the city. I do not even need public transit I suppose. I run to work. So what the heck. In fact your right. They do need move and use the legs. legs are atrophiing off most humans bodies as we speak. Let them walk and ride a bike... the bloated hulks will be better off without any type of machinations that transport them around. it has been proven that pudgy fat humans can not handle the responsibility that come with technology. Let them melt like a snow man in summer heat I say.

[Blammo]

Does the U.S. qualify as an Empire?

I am trying to do some research on this question and am having difficulty finding a conclusive answer.

I suspect we are an Empire (at least abroad) but the precise mechanisms of control are beyond me. My gut feeling is that in order for an Empire to flourish other peoples must be impoverished but I am not certain exactly how that is accomplished.

Am I corrrect in this assumption and can someone provide some facts one way or the other or point me in the right direction?

How young are you ?
Every citizen, including babies, is automatically (technically) in debt for over 8 K.......Due to the neocon project.
Add to that health care , taxation, and insurances, the finished housing market, and you have your answer.

I wonder how many Amerikka-stanianz could live as they do without credit cards ?

Pura Vida.
I think not !

[Keith_McClary]

- a global empire of bases.

An "empire of bases" is not an empire.

The word "empire" is being used metaphorically....don't you get understand that?

What we really have is just an extensive network of bases.

Face facts....the U.S. hasn't incorporated the countries in which the bases are located into a U.S. empire ruled from Washington. Do you imagine we rule Germany, Britain, Norway and all the countries in Europe with U.S. bases? You think Japan isn't an independent country? Or Italy? Or Denmark? Face facts---we haven't added those countries to some imaginary empire.

I hate to disillusion you, but Germany, Britain, Norway and other countries with U.S. bases are not part of the U.S.

Colonies are not incorporated into the ruling imperial power - if they did that it would not be an empire.

The real question is how many of these colonial puppet regimes would collapse overnight if Imperial US bases were closed. I would guess Iraq, Saudi, Kuwait, other gulf states, Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan. We may soon find out given the bankruptcy of the US and the exhaustion of the "volunteer" military.

[Jellric]

How young are you ?

I turned 40 today. And was carded today while purchasing beer lol.

I must confess that I started this thread somewhat deceptively in that I actually do believe America is an empire. But I wanted to elicit some responses pro or con to ground that belief in reality rather than mere feelings.

Hopefully America will rouse itself to confront the real problems that confront it which are mainly internal rather than external.

America needs a good, long look in the mirror.

[Subjectivist]

How can America follow in China's footsteps? IMO the USA lost its way after World War Two. We became very epicurean in our outlook, Live for today, for tomorrow we might die! All of our time horizons shrank down to at most the quarterly report for planning ahead. Free love, cheap booze, pleasure before duty to the future. We squandered what we had on fast living and cheap thrills and all we have to show for it is a changing climate, a mountain of debt, and a younger generation that can't make change without a calculator or read an analog clock.

China on the other hand has strictly enforced drug laws, an education system that requires students to actually learn useful skills, a budget surplus.

I don't know why our democracy failed, but it sure as heck has. Historically the average survival period of a democracy is under 300 years, often a lot less. America, apparently we really are not smart enough to govern ourselves. Or perhaps not wise enough would be a more accurate statement. We can build roads like the Romans did, that would last a thousand years, but instead we build roads that need replacement once a decade to ensure work for the road crews. This is not a sensible way to run a country, or a state, or even a county. Build infrastructure to last as long as possible, not to provide perpetual work for some small percentage of the population.

[Plantagenet]

Build infrastructure ....

America doesn't do that anymore.

Obama spent a trillion dollars on infrastructure with his "shovel-ready" stimulus spending---only it was all a lie. Not a mile of high speed rail was built. Not a single nuke was built. Nothing was built. It was all pork. A trillion dollars wasted on pork.

We'll never get that chance to build infrastructure again.

America today is too deep in debt and too tied up in funding various welfare and income transfer programs to build infrastructure. Theres no room in the budget for infrastructure. We'll be lucky if we can afford to pay all the promised pensions, social security, medicare, obamacare etc.

The US is so anti-infrastructure now that Obama is even blocking construction of an oil pipeline that the Canadians will pay for. Wouldn't cost us a dime and we still won't build it.

Infrastructure??? We don't do that anymore.

[Pops]

I don't know why our democracy failed, but it sure as heck has.

From what standpoint?

I think democracy is cyclical, swinging from one extreme to the other - staggering maybe a better description. Just because it isn't doing what we want doesn't mean it isn't working.

I think we're nearing the end of the second gilded age, bracketed by Reagan and Obama. Populism, whether on the left (Lizzy Warren) or on the right (Ted Cruz?) is on the rise. I'd not be surprised at something really surprising in '16.

[ROCKMAN]

Plant - Now let's be fair. President Obama gave his full support for the southern leg of KXL and instructed all fed departments to expedite it's completion. As a result it was tied into the main Keystone Pipeline that moves 600,000 bbls per day of oil sands production across the border. At the same time many $billions in new US pipeline construction is underway to move even more Canadian oil to the Gulf Coast and he has done nothing to impede that process. I suspect after the Nov elections he'll approve the process. He has also been trying to increase the coal export infrastructure on the west coast but has been meeting a good bit of local resistance. So he ordered fed regulators to expedite approval of expanded coal export infrastructure on the Texas coast at Freeport.

And let's not forget the 150 million acres of Gulf of México leases he's offered to the oil patch as well as the hundreds of Deep Water drill permits he issued just since the Marcondo blow out. And there's at least 14 oil production facilities in the GOM he has approved. All in all we've added a good bit of oil patch infrastructure since President Obama came into office. The rest of the infrastructure needs? Not my problem. LOL.

[Sixstrings]

Plant - Now let's be fair. President Obama gave his full support for the southern leg of KXL and instructed all fed departments to expedite it's completion. As a result it was tied into the main Keystone Pipeline that moves 600,000 bbls per day of oil sands production across the border. At the same time many $billions in new US pipeline construction is underway to move even more Canadian oil to the Gulf Coast and he has done nothing to impede that process. I suspect after the Nov elections he'll approve the process. He has also been trying to increase the coal export infrastructure on the west coast but has been meeting a good bit of local resistance. So he ordered fed regulators to expedite approval of expanded coal export infrastructure on the Texas coast at Freeport.

And let's not forget the 150 million acres of Gulf of México leases he's offered to the oil patch as well as the hundreds of Deep Water drill permits he issued just since the Marcondo blow out. And there's at least 14 oil production facilities in the GOM he has approved. All in all we've added a good bit of oil patch infrastructure since President Obama came into office. The rest of the infrastructure needs? Not my problem. LOL.

You're awesome Rock, some hard boring facts that cut through the narratives. (not a dig at Plant, both political sides are full of it, they're really pretty much the same)

O is not a climate change president. Even boosting coal exports! THE biggest problem, worse than tar sands.

I actually agree with the pipeline, at this point. There's an added benefit here, in Montana (or is it Wyoming), they get to piggy back put their shale or whatever onto that same pipeline. And don't have to go by train anymore. Overall, it's smart, pipeline issue should be over with, we can't stop Canada from doing tar sands anyway.