Is America fighting for its empire?

Today my Archaeology teacher was talking about how every empire eventually completely caves in upon itself in one form or another, and I began to entertain the possibility that through all the protesting, arguing, and disagreement- perhaps the United States is acting accordingly.

If you consider what it will be like reading about the US 200 years from now, will its fall be that big of a surprise? The writing has been all over the wall since the 50s, and has riddled major media since the 80s.

So; is America justified in its actions to defend the empire, even if they don't come to truthful terms with them (has anyone ever?)

The great thing that came out of WWII, and eventually, as a residual effect, the Cold War, was that Europe finally, more or less, learned its lesson.  It contributed to the collapse of the British Empire, and it's why they've contented themselves with being smelly, Godless pussies, and God bless them for it. 

The infuriating thing about America is that at the rate we're going, it's going to TAKE us being the bad guys in something even bigger for us to get our comeuppance.  The reason why this is especially frustrating is because we have history's lessons right before us.  I think that our national consciousness is roughly in the same place that Europe's was a century ago-superiority validated by affluence, on uneasy terms with the rest of the world.  Trigger happy.

That last bit was conventionally liberal, yes, but get it straight-I love America.  McDonald's hamburgers are motherfucking delicious.  BECAUSE I love America so much, I am interested in whatever intellectual or social action will save it-from the external, or from itself, if need be.  If America could chill out and still exist in another 500 years, and never actually GET its comeuppance by paying close attention to the lessons of history, I'd be pleased.  But that probably won't be happening.

>>1

Your archaeology teacher's statement was... a trick. A counter-factual trueism. There are empires that have yet to cave in on themselves, like the U.S. empire, the French empire, the British empire (Canada, Australia, Scotland, Ireland, Wales...). So on face value he's simply wrong.

Elsewise, he's simply making a non-scientific prediction based upon common occurences, like when that guy with the talk show who pretends he can talk to the dead goes up to people and goes "I feel that you've lost a loved one"... well duh, why else would they be on your show?

The point is that most empires have fallen, but so have most societies... and in fact, how do we even know which nations to call empires? I mean, certainly China is an empire since it is the result of a smallish nation of one people conquering the nations of many other peoples to form the geographic body known today. Yet that was thousands of years ago and the cultures and gene groups are essentially homogenous across China (though not precisely). Is China an empire then? And if China is, does that mean that *every single country which is currently occupying land that was not empty of human inhabitants before they came in* is an empire? Oh, wait... in that case EVERY COUNTRY IS AN EMPIRE. In fact, many countries would be empires which had conquered empires which had conquered empires which had conquered empires.

My point is that the word "empire" is a silly, non-scientific, irrational, emotionally loaded word, that is useless for rational discourse.

Main Entry: em·pire
Pronunciation: 'em-"pIr
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French empire, empirie, from Latin imperium absolute authority, empire, from imperare
1 a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control
2 : imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion

With open markets and free trade in the modern world, you don't need to control extensive territory anymore; information and capital are better at controlling resources than the military alternative.

As with >>4 the definition refers to physical territory, and thus a nation with an agenda of geographic expansion will be Imperial in nature.

Has America an imperial agenda? I think it does. Because of the huge amount of money spent on the military it needs to have return of the investment.

>>4

See what I mean? That definition is so ambiguous as to be completely useless.

A "major" "political unit" having a "territory" of "great" extent or a number of territories or "peoples" under a "single sovereign authority"; especially : one having an "emperor" as chief of state.

Major: how big is major? :P

Political unit: are all political units acceptable? what about student government at my university? :P

Territory: as >>5 brings up, is territory geographical, economic, informational, capital, military? or all of the above? just some?

Great: LOLz!

Peoples: So if you conquer an area without a defined ethnic group you're not an emperor? So Amsterdam which has dozens of nationalities in it wouldn't count? Or does peoples just mean "human beings", in which case all you're really saying is you have to invade occupied territory (e.g., the entire world as of 18 thousand years ago)?

Single sovereign authority: e.g., every country ever. King = single sovereign authority, dictator = ssa, democratic plurality = ssa, pope = ssa. The only conceivable point where a country wouldn't have an ssa is if it had two leaders of equal power ruling at the same time. While this is possible, I don't think it happens very often. Is that your only way out of being an empire? :P

Emperor: a word just as useless as Empire. But by using them together, we achieve circularity! Self-referential post-modernism is a go!

Thanks for posting the definition so everyone could see how arbitrary and functionally useless it is.

Bush is fighting for his investments.  That is all.

<Inst#cspell>
An empire is a political entity held together by sheer political or military will. A nation state is a political entity that is held together by the cultural or ethnic unity of the population.

No, the United States is not an empire, because if you toppled the government, Arkansas and New York would not secede from the union.

More importantly, is Canada an empire?

>>8
Does this mean warlords are emperors lording over their empires?

>>8
There are secession movements everywhere in the US. Hawaii, Texas, Cascadia. Some like Hawaii's are stronger politically.

The US is not that united politically. The South, ie. the states that made up the Confederacy, still feels like a nation of their own. And so on.

Yeah, but no one takes them seriously.  It's like a third party running for office. 

But >>5 is right, we expand and conquer through corporations and resources now, not physical territory.  And look at any, ANY country and tell me there isn't some US based product being sold there.  Other countries spread brands globally too, but we seem to be the best at proliferating without guilt.  Starbucks, Coke, Disney and McDonald's being prime examples.       

Looking at where USA have army bases is quite enlightening.

Looking at where Coca-Cola has bottling plants is more enlightening.

>>12
you got a map?

http://www.ppu.org.uk/peacematters/2003/pm2003_37.html

That's the best I can find, but i saw another on the internet before that basically showed they were everywhere

>>15 Image is gay, uses "countries iwht US military bases" in order to scare the shit out of viewers. Spots per base is more accurate.

Most if not all countries have some sort of US mil base IIRC.  It's not that big a deal.

We must invade the Eastern Front!

No no, the Western Front!

It's kind of quiet there

lots of french girls though

>>10
Stranger things have happened.  Really, on the historical weirdometer, the US breaking up is rather tame.

Israel will be the next superpower. IT'S THE JEWS.

>>2
sage for liking mcdonalds, fucking tool. Try some REAL meat some time, you'll thank me you city-dwelling knuckle-dragging clod.

What in the hell is wrong with you people that don't like this country? Where else in the world can you achieve the sort of things that you can achieve here by honestly working your ass off? Is it wealth envy? Does looking at other peoples' achievements hurt your self-esteem because you haven't done shit with your life? Go ahead, blame it on all the evil corporations that make your life as easy here as it is, and just let the big-government types keep stealing your hard-earned tax payer money to fund things like high-school football teams and the Paper Industry Hall of Fame, and million-dollar bridges to nowhere in Alaska...

>>25
You contradict yourself. You accuse us of disagreeing with the country, while you attack big-spending. The entire thread is ABOUT big-spending. How much do you think Iraq cost?

The empire isn't "America". The empire is a collusion between the largest corporations, the largest financial institutions, and whichever governments will get in line. Halliburton and The World Bank would love it if the US Federal Gov't gets all on the hook for its debts and had to cut services. So long as they keep funnelling money to oil companies and giant construction engineering firms, it's still the same empire.

And no, that empire isn't quitting anytime soon.

My point remains. ù_ú

おもえ　は　ばかもの　です。。。

No republic has lasted more than 300 years. 

How old is America?  When's our expiration date?  2076.

THEY ARE MOVING TO ISREAL

>>28

Your point isn't worth addressing. It depends on all kinds of soft headed thinking. You're an idiot. You say, for example, "Where else in the world can you achieve the sort of things that you can achieve here by honestly working your ass off?" which is completely irrelevant to the things that upset people about America. Irrelevant and incorrect besides.

Your discussion of corporatism vs big government is so last decade. Now we have corporatism *AND* big government. This was nicely addressed by >>26. We're going to spend at least a trillion dollars in Iraq, just so that we can funnel dollars into Halliburton, Carlysle, and the rest. The only benefit to anyone on the planet will be fatter cupon clippings for their shareholders.

How does that relate to "what you can achieve here by honestly working your ass off"? It doesn't. Your point has nothing to do with a discussion of the corporate empire. You point is off topic.

Oh. And about "you people that don't like this country". Who says we don't like this country? We just don't like the sheep like you that fuck up our politics. We like the rest of America just fine.

>>27
But the US is Globalisation's biggest advocate and largest shareholder. So while Globalisation and America are not the same, they are inseparable friends.

Ok then, my irrelevant point remains. :3

the ami lardass empire will collaps because all that mcdonald's shit will make them so fat that they are going to implode.


seriously, the average ami has already more mass then the moon

Libertarianism ftw

>>35
Libertopia lollertopia.
Laissez-faire philosophies are great if you want to remove all power from an accountable government and give it all to whoever has the most money.

Better than giving all power to a central government who basically has no accountability either. 

government accountability is a myth.  The only thing that keeps them from absolute power is the fact that they're so badly run.

>>36
I was talking about libertarianism as a political movement, not as an ideal jackass. 

>>38
Government accountability is alive and well in many countries in the world.

>>39
And that changes what?

>>40
Means that it's not an anarcho captialist movement, but a movement to reduce government spending and interference in people's lives (read:government waste), something neither party nor government ass-lickers like yourself would ever do.

Any radical change is going to cause chaos; I'm talking about a gradual shift, and not complete in that direction anyway.  Extremes tend to be lacking.

Oh no, not the middle ground fallacy again. The positions of the extremes are always informed by our current position, they are not absolute.

In any case, the fact that you're painting me as a "government ass-licker" probably means that you're more extreme than you think.

>>42
Well, you are a little government ass-licker.  And people who think the government should just dissolve like that are anarcho capitalist fags.  And you have to admit that you are extreme yourself.  Even the staunchest liberals in my country admit that government can be a horrible waste and a useless beaurocracy.  You have some airy fairy view of them as perfect responsible citizens, which they are; but only when it's stuff that people will remember next election cycle.

We shouldn't have such humongous groups of people controlling us, corporate or government.  That's why I believe in letting them constantly contradict each other.  It lets us have a normal life.

Holy shit Mr. >>42! Mr. >>43 called you an >airy fairy! Ohhhh snap! Are you going to take that? You JUST GOT SERVED!

Yeah boy, whatcha gonna do?

>>43 is DQN

>>46
Only fags on world 4ch call people DQN.

>>47
Damn straight. Now bend over you world4ch bitch.

>>36
How does a coutry thrive better with the government having control over the market rather than a free economy?

Government does nothing great, and does few things well. Please explain your communistic logic...

>>49
GOVERNMENT CARES FOR PEOPLE, IT FEEDS THE HOMELESS LITTLE NIGGERS WHO OTHERWISE CAN'T FEED THEMSELVES ARE YOU A RACIST?

Bush doesn't care about Black people.

unf

So you should just be a little myrmidon and let the government control every aspect of your life? Anyone in this country who can't feed themselves one way or another is a lazy bum. If you're in poverty, it's your own damn fault. Aside from physical or mental handicaps, there's no excuse for it. BAM, the truth hurts, kids.

>>52

Why is laziness such a bad thing?

What's the opposite of laziness? Industriousness? Mindless industriousness is bad too; there are limits to the necessities of production for most goods. Like most things in life, the rational person would advocate the middle way.

>>49
During the 60s the US had the highest rates of growth. It also had the most government. After the 80s you get Greenspan and his laissez-faire free market policies, and stock market bubbles and debt.

>>54
YOU NEED A LARGER SAMPLING TO SHOW CAUSATION

>>55
If I can tell you how, I can apply for the fucking Nobel Prize. I don't know HOW. But it happened.

>>56
YOU NEED A LARGER SAMPLING TO SHOW CAUSATION

>>57
No I don't

>>58
Yes you do.  All we have right now is two or three periods in history. 

No I don't. Why must there be a larger sample. I only need to show one instance of big government and thriving economy to prove works.