Empirical Ambitions

Remove all ads!

It isn't imperialism. It is the foreign policy objective of just about every nation. It is the local policy of just about every state/province in every country. Lastly it is also the objective of every city and town in every state/province.

I notice you are from Greece. Do you honestly believe that the Greek government is working for the benefit of humanity? Do they have a one world attitude and are striving to unite the world as one under the banner of the United Nations? Of course not. They are trying to do what is best for Greece and the Greek citizens.

I see no difference.

 

Here is a cogent and intelligent look at US imperialism, both past and present.

Strangely, it leaves out all mention of the dastarly plans of the PNAC. It is also interesting that the only link between this PNAC document and the Administration was made (and unsupported) by the Sunday Herald.

 

@BTA & Great Snook

I don't know if you read the document, but if you read it, you will find phrases like "Preserve Pax Americana" or "Secure and expand zones of democratic peace; deter rise of new great-power competitor; defend key regions". You may disagree but for me these show pure imperialism and nothing else

@Hacken Slash

I think that the events of the last months are the proof that this document is connected with the White House.

 

Now I know I just grabbed them from the top post,m but come on fellas, If that's not Imperial Ambitions (hehe) I don't know what is.

An Empire may not necessarily be evil, and sure, people may want the rest of the world to live by their principles, but to say that the world (and space!) is the 'new American frontier' and that this pax Americana is to be enforced to the seclusion of any other power, and by force, is what an empire is.

Come on, we cannot prove what is going on in the minds of someone elses head, but from what has been written, and the fact that leading members of parliament and George's younger brother were involved leads me to think it's a pretty fair asumption.

We cannot say this for sure, but we can say it is likely, and no-one here can say for sure that it isn't.

 

Does that have to apply to anyone except the American people. We're trying to improve our own country? Yours can most likely say the same.

Thank you Snook. Any country whose leaders don't try to ensure their own interests have no business being leaders, as they'll let anyone else do whatever they want.

Or perhaps its a series of coincidences woven together into a conspiracy theory. The same thing has happened several times in the past.

Remember the Cold War? When everyone in the world lived in fear of a nuclear holocaust? Do you want that again? This 'Pax Americana' thing is intended to assure that doesn't happen.

America has no parliament. Jeb Bush is what, the governor of Florida? That means nothing.

People are taking this way out of proportion. This document is intended to prevent the situation that was prevalent throughout the 20th century called the Cold War. I don't know about you all, but I'd rather not have to live with the thought that there are millions of nuclear missiles pointed at my backyard.

 

The difference is that for me ensuring the interests of my country means to keep my borders safe and to have cooperation and good relationships with my neighbours and the rest of the world. What PNAC document says about shaping the world is an application of the Athenian Thesis.

 

Rastor, you are completely missing the point, and ignoring what was being said by everyone here as well I think.

Whether you think it is better or not for the rest of the world to follow American idealism, some of those other countries may feel differently. We are talking about using military force, that is, the threat of death, to dictate how everybody else behaves? What gives anyone this right?? Or even this responsibility?

Whether you think it is right to do this or not doesn't change the fact of what is actually happenning, that it is the threat of a new world order so to speak, one ruled by force- this is what has been proposed.

Ok, let's take a few of your statements on board here... you say that the only good or responsible leader (you said that anyone else had no business being a leader to be precise) is one who will ensure their own interests. Here we are talking about enforcing those interests overseas by arms, and I assume you were talking about the same thing, otherwise you are way off topic.

Let's say New Zealand or Egypt had been secretly making nuclear weapons and building tanks, and had recruited mercenaries that were stationed in tactical posistions across the globe. How would you feel if your own military was vastly outpowered by theirs, so from this day forward you (as a country) have to act inaccordance with the wishes of the country with the biggest guns, because they think you should. America may be seen as a threat to them, so they may decide to launch a pre-emptive strike at you to make sure the message is clear, to make an example of you so to speak, in-case you might rise big enough to defeat them, or at least, to make your own decisions. You would call that a global dictatorship I think, and would probably endorse a war against them; Whether you think some of their 'pax Egyptian' was good or not, you probably wouldn't like the idea of being dominated like that by principle alone.

Sounds different when the shoe's on the other foot now doesn't it?

 

This is Special Agent Dick Bonsky with the Central Intelligence Agency. I am posting on the computer of a certain "Hacken Slash", after he was arrested for hacking into the IRS mainframe and authorizing tax rebates for all citizens who have more than 2 vowels in their names.

I would like to thank "Mr. Manus" for the following very sensitive information:

We have long been looking for a new target, now that the occupation in Iraq is winding down to police action, and the nation will soon be turned over to French peacekeeping forces.

We are grateful for the tip concerning the previously unkown threat from New Zealand...seems they've been making a little more than movies down there for the last few years, huh?

Also, Mr. Manus, if you have any information that will help us locate and apprehend the leader of this rogue state, you may be able to claim all or part of the 25 million bounty we will be offering for him. Further, we will gladdly give a $25 gift certificate to Starbucks if you would at least let us know who the leader of New Zealand is.

Love to stick around and chat games with you folks, why I even played D-end-D once when I was younger, but I have to check out a hot tip about a chemical weapons plant disguised as a landfill on Long Island.

Live Long and Prosper (that is what you people say, right?)

 

First of all Greek politicians are incompetend and have forgotten the word benefit if it does not mean their pockets. I include the 99.9% of them in this statement.
Secondly Greeces foreign policy is being designated, in its biggest part, from foreign people, circles, groups and countries- a sad fact that all Greeks know. I could give you an example from the WW II the beginning of the current balancies that exist now throughout the world but i will not unless asked to.
And just to be in topic i will inform you that before USA started to play their preemptive strikes game and medling with the internal affairs of countries the last 8 or so years, i and most of (vast majority) the people i know, talk or am aware of their feelings about this felt a lot safer before than now. Why? Because you may talk about Kossovo like something distant or Iraq like something away from you (and you are right about this assumption) but we live next door.
And the Kossovo issue has stirred up some extreme nationalist groups (UCK and his new form but with same goals), which now dream of Great Albania and thinking of claiming their demands with weapons. And this can easily lead to another Balkan war. An allready victim of this is FYROM which country right now is being tormented by an undeclared civil war that has not reached beyond the closed doors of Foreign Office i presume.
The invasion in Iraq and the role that the Kurds have taken in that has given them the rightfull claim of independence. I agree with that allthough i know that should this thing even remotely happen (not a sovereign state but a big deal of independence) the whole area of eastern Mediterranean will ignite like a napalm and if you don't think so, go and check what Turkey thinks.
As for Greece, the only thing we the majority of the people want is safety in our and for our country and neighbours you can talk with for any issue risen. What do we have?
We have from one side (north) Albania who want to take and the rest of Ipeirous as another gift (nothern Ipeirus is not enough), FYROM who has some extreme elements that want the whole Thessaloniki area in order to manage some growth, Turkey (and more specifically Turkish generals since these people really govern Turkey) who would love to see at least the half Aegean sea ( and the islands to have somewhere to do their vacations) under their command and Cyprus as an alternative option for vacations too (only the Greek islands is too monotonous you see). Are we supposed to feel happy now that Turkey feels stressed with the Kurdish issue and looks my country as a roasted chicken ready to be delivered? Should i feel safe? Or the example of what happens in Cyprus, where noone is innocent, but despite the fact any UN leaded effort to solve the whole issue diminishes in useless talks (or stupid demands) about nothing while in the same time the simple people want to put this thing behind.
Does it look like Greek politicians strive for the benefit of the country? Well from inside i tell you that they do not and all they care about is their own wellfare, and they remember us every four years (elections you see), who during that year (of the elections) try pathetically to ensure us that they do strive for our benefit.
Should i feel safe also for the fact that the war against terror has managed to light the fire of hate in the hearts of most muslims against the West? And the fact that because the are being hunted (or we think they are now since they were always) they have become more ruthless than ever? Should i feel happy now that in about 8 months from now my country and more specifically Athens, the city i live in, hosts the Olympic games, which supposedly are a fest of peace and friendship between people but instead, and under the current global situation, will be a fest of security and control? Or should i mention the despicable fact that untill now every month we have a warning about the security of the Olympic games from the US administration because we have not accepted to hand over this issue to US or any other country for that matter?
We whine about humanitarian principles because we have already been where USA is trying to be (world empire) and i tell you that the downfall is a natural thing and the higher you are the harder the fall. We whine for humanitarian principles because we have maybe seen our share of war ( i dare say a big share too) and have understood that something is wrong in the whole picture. And maybe you don't get this but imagine your country to be like Iraq or Serbia or any country near these conflicts (supposedly lets say that Canada did all this stuff) and tell me how would you feel, safe?
Would you like you to have the treatment these people had? And don't tell me they deserved it. Because they did not.

Yeah right remember Nixon, just coincidences

 

@Mithrandir

That's a little gradiose, wouldn't you say?

 

Mithrandir,
I have another scenario then. Let's see how safe you feel about this one.

The US withdraws from all foreign intervention and proceeds to follow the Monroe doctrine again. We're out of the UN (which would collapse due to lack of funds without us, BTW), and adopt our new self-serving policy.

Now, here's where you should start to get scared. Any country (or individual) that conducts any hostile action gets nuclear warheads into them. So, we're now turning Afghanistan into a crater (because that's where bin Laden is hiding). After that, any country that he then runs to is quickly destroyed by nuclear and hydrogen weapons without even given a chance to turn him over. Suppose he comes to your country?

Would you rather we followed that policy?

 

Nice scenario Rastor but you forget to include three crucial factors. Russia, France and China. Do you think that they will wait for you to nuke them?

 

And don't forget India, Pakistan and the UK. Particularly Pakistan and India won't like to have their neighborhoud turned into a nuclear wasteland. Which then would impact phone-customer service in Greatbritain.

 

Rastor, that is not a different policy, it is simply one that is more extreme. I think you are now being silly, and I also think that destroying the world doesn't serve anyone.

By the way, the greeks did conquer all of the world known to them, and then stopped- They held it for quite a while on several occasions, and paid the price in blood.

Mithrantir I think has a valid point, you cannot keep up this sort of ambition -and I am not saying that America is yet trying too, but they may be getting close- it only ends in bloodshed. You cannot expect people to always be rational, and contempt breeds contempt, death breeds death.

In the end, you can enforce peace only for a short period of time, it has been tried before, and has always ended in dire consequences for everyone involved on both sides, and more often than not those who tried to stay uninvolved as well.

Now when I started this topic, I meant that I was astounded that this sort of thing could go on. The first few posts (See Hacken Slash, Grey Magistrate and Chandros the Red, all of who are American) is what I expected, that people would recognize that it is silly to sincerely think that trying to take over the world in such a fashion is plausible.

Don't get me wrong here, while I disagree with America's foreign policy and wars of invasion in general, I will immediately admit that some good may have come from several of these wars. I'm not saying that it couldn't have been done in a better way, but it is true that such policing does have an effect, and it can be viewed as a misguided benefactory, and I cannot say that I would prefer that anyone be lead by those dictators or groups, only that the ways in which these wars are conducted, and the lead up to them which often has the US (and other nations as well, I'm not denying that) supporting the people it then turns on, does not seem to me like the best option, and far too much is destroyed.

The fact is however, that if you are 'leading' other nations and they do not wish it, it is agressive imperialism, a dictatorship on a large scale. If you wish conditions be favourable in your own country, the best place to start is within that country.

Now I can understand if some of you sincerely do think that everyone else out there is a threat to you, as little as I myself agree with you, and I can even understand if the thought among such people is that the best defense is a good offense, and it is not surprising that you feel your own beliefs are the ones everyone should believe as well.

But does anyone here truly believe that the best solution is to bring the rest of the world to fire and the sword? How long do you think such a peace eould last holding each country at sword-point? Could you honestly live with yourselves if you did such a thing?

It was Stalin I believe who said: Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.

Is this the type of peace you want? Remember it is your lives at stake here too.

There is a huge difference between defending your country, assisting another (and let's assume that they asked for the help here to reduce the number of arguments) and world dominion.

However, on a more serious note I am authoring a petition to be forwarded to a certain Dick Bonsky pertaining to the release of our beloved spokes-man and peace-keeper Hacken Slash. May our taxes be reduced.

I believe that the leader of New-Zealand is Gandalf the White, he defeated Saruman, but didn't like it on the far shores. The Grey Havens were too strong a reminder of his past so he came back.

However, I think it may have been sold to Autralia (hehe) for the letters 'i' and 'e'. In this case the leader is Mr. Sheen.

"It has always been easier to destroy that to create" -- Spock

 

I would welcome USA's "Empire" with open arms if they kept Southeast Asia free from the grasp of communist filth China.

 

No since we had a world empire as Manus reminded you. At least of the then known world.

Well this would sound to me as the beginning of the end of our civilization. USA against the rest of the world? Nice match. But i have a question on your scenario.
First of all who would it be possible for USA intelligence services to know where Bin Laden lies since thwy would have withdrawn from all the treaties of cooperation they have made.
Secondly can you tell me what would happen if you found out that Bin Laden had somehow entered USA and is hiding in there? What US administration would start nuking every suspect city? Or if he is in Iraq near the US troops? Would US public opinion concede to kill thier own troops just for one guy?
Or would the public of USA would like to see the whole world unite against USA?
Answer me if you wish
And BTW Mithrantir not Mithrandir thank you

 

@Mithrantir
Continuing off topic. "Known world"? Isn't that a little bit grandiose? Known to who? There were thriving civilizations in other parts of the world at this time (China, India, Japan, the Americas) that the Greeks could not have conquered. Just because the Greeks did not have knowledge of these civilizations does not mean that the did not exist. That is why you are being grandiose.

A true world empire is unatainable. At least for now.

As far as Rastors Monroe doctrine scenario, it is pointless to debate a scenario that will not occur.