but I wont toy with you any longer, its quite obvious you're in a sour little mood.
*chuckle* riiight... well Napoleon God emperor of the universe... I will let you make your way out of this thread so you can resume your control of matter, space, and time.
*laughs*
======================================================
Actually Japan had already been an industrial nation and they rebuilt themselves.
I didn't say otherwise. However, their government was not suitable for alliance and stable relations.
Ergo we fixed that. However, beyond that they're a free country and I think most would say better for our intervention unless you want to say they'd be better off running a pan asianic empire in some kind of military dictatorship?
Furthermore, we were not the aggressors in WW2, Japan attacked us (Korea was a part of Japan at the time so of course we'd occupy it).
The identity of the aggressor is not relevant to this discussion. We are talking about if we are an empire and/or what the nature of our relations are with the rest of the world.
Who starts a fight is not relevant to your imperialism. What is relevant is what you do once you've won.
Had the US started the war, burned japan to the ground and then urinated on the ashes that would not make us an empire.
If japan started the war and we turned Japan into a subject territory of the US under our complete political, economic, and cultural control... then we would be an imperialist state.
What we did was occupy them long enough to ensure political change and then established strong trade ties with them. Ties which are entirely voluntary and maintained exclusively by mutual benefit.
The US wasn't concerned about rebuilding Japan (we even limited the size of their military and how that military could be used in the constitution we wrote for them).
Again irrelevant. The size of the military is less relevant then their industry and infrastructure getting rebuilt. In those affairs we did help them.
Korea basically built itself up too (with some US money...but we only invested in South Korea to counter North Korea, we weren't being altruistic).
Again irrelevant. If I hire someone to build a house and I pay for it... then I can say I built my own house even though it was a construction company and various contractors that did the job.
Koreans did rebuild their country. But they did so with our support. that's just a fact.
As to altruism, I never said we did this out of the goodness of our hearts. In fact, I said the exact opposite. So you're not reading my posts. I said we have built up a super civilization of mutual interests.
Savvy? Mutual interests. Their strength is ours and ours theirs. Not because we just love them that much but because their strength is ours and they remain with us not because we'll kill them if they tell us to piss off but because likewise our strength is theirs.
As for Afghanistan, I was unclear but I said that one could argue that it is a case of imperialism. I personally wouldn't
Well, you can argue that sheep poop gold too... not with any credibility of course... likewise don't cite arguments you could make unless you think they're valid.
Iraq on the other hand, did not harbor terrorists which attacked America nor did Iraq attack America/immenently would attack America.
Perhaps you don't know what imperialism means or are just off topic. Imperialism has nothing to do with being the aggressor or not. IT has everything to do with what you do once you win. You can be an imperialist power and be the victim every single time.
Even if Sadaam had possesed WMDs, the US didn't have to resort to war. Recently North Korea agreed to shut down its nuclear reactors, get rid of its nuclear weapons, and allow inspectors in to make sure they did it.
First, Saddam broke the ceasefire agreements. So at that point going back in was a legal and ethical option.
Second, we did believe he had them and was soon to aquire them. He was uncooperative and we felt that the credibility of the anti nuclear proliferation laws was in check. Think of it like this, what's going to happen to speeding laws if you don't pull people over and give them a ticket when they speed? Ok... now what do you do when they don't pay the ticket? Ok, now what do you do when they take the boot of their car that you put on because of all the unpaid tickets?
At some point you're going to have to throw that guy in jail. Iraq had crossed the line too many times.
Furthermore, on top of all of that we thought it was a chance to change the middle east. To go in there and try to turn the very heart of darkness into a fortress of hope.
Add it up:
We had the right to go in.
We had many reasons to go in.
He was militarily weak.
His people hate him.
He had basically no allies.
And we have a shot at changing the very map of the middle east into something far less dangerous.
Name any other country with a list like that.
As to North Korea we had to bribe him and he's still f'ing with us. I want you to stop and think about that bribe. A percentage of your taxes is going into NK coffers. It's ransom money. A danegeld.
If negotiation could work with a total nut job like Kim Il Sung, then it could have worked with Sadaam (who, while just as evil, was more rational than Sung).
If China wasn't backing NK up we would have squished that silly country decades ago... really, it never would have come into being. There woudl be north and south Korea. There would simply be "korea".
So it's not a valid argument. Saddam had no nuclear backer.
However, the UN inspectors weren't finding WMDs and the Bush adminstration decided to go in anyways without giving the inspectors more time.
The US was not the only country that thought saddam had nukes.
It was the belief of the US, UK, Germany, and Israel. We even got a little out of france.
Why? Because saddam was actively hinting that he might have nukes. It helped him in his relations with his neighboring countries.
He miscalculated though and we went in.
As to the UN, I'll ask you to note that it is not the most moral or honorable body on earth. I think they put Syria as watchdog for humain violations... among other despicable moves.
The US was the aggressor nation and we resorted to war first, no neogotiations, no additional economic sanctions, we went to war first and realized it was a bad idea only later. Iraq is a case of imperialism.
This is just not true.
First, being the aggressor does not automatically make you wrong. I'm really rather tired of that argument.
Second, we did negotiate... those negotiations went on in fact for months. They didn't get anywhere.
Third, people were already bitching about economic sanctions and many countries were already starting to violate them. I think the argument that we should be putting economic sanctions on countries like Iraq instead of attacking them are dishonest when if we do that you say we should do nothing. It's always less. No matter what we do there is always a loud cry to do basically nothing. Well, we have to do something. Get over it. Without some response you get chaos.
The Philipines certainly didn't have a stable democratic government after we left despite our stated intent being "to prepare the Philipines for independence."
that doesn't help prove we're an empire though.
I'm not even going to bother arguing against that. I'm just going to point out that again it's irrelevant. Abandonining them if that's what you're saying we did... does not make us an empire.
As for South Korea, it had a dictator by the time that most US troops had left just prior to the Korean War. The South Korean people themselves forced a democracy with little to no US help.
First, the most important point of our alliance is that it is alligns everyone's interests internationally and is stable.
Most dictatorships are not stable in this regard. South Korea however was as they were pressured into alliance with us via the threat of North Korea and China.
Second, I don't think you can say we had no part in their movement to democracy. The very concept of democracy comes from the western civilization. So when their country is brought into a tight alliance with the most powerful western nation and is filled with western culture via trade and stationed soldiers... and personnel... I don't think you can say we didn't have anything to do with it.
In fact, I think we can credibly claim to say we gave them the idea. For without us would they have spontaneously come to the idea? And only by being protected by us in the first place would they have had the option at all.
In Iran during the 50s we got rid of a democratically elected government and put the shah in power.
Cite a link for that please.
We put Manuel Noreiga in power.
Ah, this is a product of the cold war. You wouldn't ask us to let an enemy super civilization move about us with impunity?
Had we not acted to suppress the soviets most of europe would have fallen to them... and nearly all of asia... and perhaps half of south america.
The world would also be a far more dangerous place.
Now I wouldn't say the US is any worse than the old imperial powers. We just aren't any better either.
Complete nonsense. You could only say that if you were ignorant of what they did. Most of what we have done that was bad was a transitional phase into something like South Korea or Japan. If we were as bad as them japan would be a subject power to this day.
Remember their surrender was UNCONDITIONAL. We could have made japan the 51st state... or a territory of the federal government. THAT is empire. Instead we made sure they weren't going to attack us again, and then basically forgave them and let them into our alliance.
that is what we do... it isn't empire and it's certainly NOTHING like the old european empires. I can't even believe you said that.
Sins Forums
. I personally believe that any country that has been attacked by another country or that country harbors and supports attackers of the "victim" nation has the right to go into the aggressor nation and insure that the aggressing nation will no longer attack the "victim" nation.
JoeUser Forums
