The Reality is

[kendoiwan]

American history sucks... whenever I read about the effects U.S. policy had on the lives of others in the various nations we meddled in it depresses me...

It's no wonder America's image around the world is at an all time low, the childeren of the people who we screwed over all across the world are now adults with a fresh memory of what we've done to them...

If I continued this would have to be move to rants and raves....

[distraction tactics]

I don't think it 'sucks', but I don't think Americans at large come clean with it. I mean, the US was meddling in the Phillipines in the 19th Century.

There is a lot of civic-oriented history that is very interesting. There are a lot more popular American myths than there are Canadian, for example. Boston Tea Party, Lewis & Clark, Paul Revere, Civil War... American history is lively.

[kendoiwan]

I don't think it 'sucks', but I don't think Americans at large come clean with it. I mean, the US was meddling in the Phillipines in the 19th Century.

There is a lot of civic-oriented history that is very interesting. There are a lot more popular American myths than there are Canadian, for example. Boston Tea Party, Lewis & Clark, Paul Revere, Civil War... American history is lively.


I'm more referring to the 20th century and the effects of the cold war...
We pretty much screwed over the whole globe in one way or another...:mellow:

[distraction tactics]

I'm more referring to the 20th century and the effects of the cold war...
We pretty much screwed over the whole globe in one way or another...:mellow:

I know, hence the phillipines crack, showing that US involvement in others' business isn't a post-WWII development.

However, it's unfair to focus only one one aspect (unless of course that is your whole idea.. then just carry on) when there is a very rich tradition in other areas of US history.

[kendoiwan]

It's unfair to focus on an aspect that doesn't show up in the history books?

Jamaica, Cuba, Iran, Ethiopia, the whole continent of South America, not to mention all of the madness domestically... We hold them up at gun point so that our citizens can go to disney land...

[kendoiwan]

Not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan

[distraction tactics]

Get real. You know what I mean.

[kendoiwan]

No I don't... mind reading is not one of my talents...

Whenever I read up on or speak to someone from another country and learn of the role our gov't and it policies played in the suffering of others I see no silver lining in that...

[distraction tactics]

No I don't... mind reading is not one of my talents...

Whenever I read up on or speak to someone from another country and learn of the role our gov't and it policies played in the suffering of others I see no silver lining in that...

Then how about just 'reading'?


...when there is a very rich tradition in other areas of US history.


(unless of course [focusing on a single, narrow aspect of US history] is your whole idea.. then just carry on)

[kendoiwan]

Then how about just 'reading'?


That's speaking in riddles... I gave you specific instances of U.S. fuckerism and with 1 or 2 exceptions (WWII and Kosivo) I can't think of anything as bright to counteract the clear dark that I'm speaking to... Nothing "narrow" about fucking over the entire globe btw<_<

[headfonez]

I'll be damned

[kendoiwan]

I'll be damned


I'm afraid to ask...

[relaxo]

American history sucks... whenever I read about the effects U.S. policy had on the lives of others in the various nations we meddled in it depresses me...

It's no wonder America's image around the world is at an all time low, the childeren of the people who we screwed over all across the world are now adults with a fresh memory of what we've done to them...


Ya it's terrible. Destroying nazi germany, blowing up suicide nation japan, putting an end to totalitarian communism in eastern europe not to mention stopping it from spreading to other nations, getting rid of Saddam and the Taliban, getting indpendence for Cuba, stealing away Texas from a mexican dictator, taking over the Philipeans from the Spanish who treated them so nice, telling the Birtish and French they couldn't take over the Suez canal from the Egyptians, sending billions of dollars every year in aid to nations all over the earth, bringing business which creates jobs, products and services, promoting democracy, saying israel has a right to exist, helping stop ethnic masacres in Yugoslavia. ya just terrible.

Of course no other nations screw other countries, just the USA.

[kendoiwan]

Ha.... How about we trade those billions in aid in exchange for nations implementing economic policy that isn't really in their best interest... How about we abandoned every nation that we supported during the cold war and left them to their own fates after promising the world to them ie Afghanistan... how about we toppled democratic regimes if they didn't play the way we thought they should, how about Iran-Contra... how about we supplied Sadam with the same weapons we said he shouldn't have and gave him the okay to use... How about you're extremely naive if you believe your version of events is the way the world at large views us... How about this is way too easy... try again

[Serotonin]

putting an end to totalitarian communism in eastern europe not to mention stopping it from spreading to other nations

I'm fairly sure that was a failure of communism in itself. Reagan talked big, and U.S. diplomacy may have given a little nudge, but for the U.S. to take the lion's share of the credit is naive.

The U.S. is just another country with its own interests, just like any other country. Not some moral yardstick for the rest of the world to look up to.

[relaxo]

Ha.... How about we trade those billions in aid in exchange for nations implementing economic policy that isn't really in their best interest...

I agree, America should not send aid to any nation. Other nations will eventually realize capitalism is in their best interests.



How about we abandoned every nation that we supported during the cold war and left them to their own fates after promising the world to them ie Afghanistan...

like Afghanistan? Who promised them anything? Of course, if America then kicked out the Taliban after the Soviet Invasion, you'd bitch about that. oh,I see you do...



how about we toppled democratic regimes if they didn't play the way we thought they should, how about Iran-Contra...

which "democratic" regimes? this is your chance...!



how about we supplied Sadam with the same weapons we said he shouldn't have and gave him the okay to use...

USA sold 200 million in weapons to him. To fight the Iranians (which is ok by my standards).
France and China sold him 5 billion. USSR/Russia sold him 20 billion.
(can't imagine why those nations were against the overthrow of saddam who still owed them money...)



How about you're extremely naive if you believe your version of events is the way the world at large views us... How about this is way too easy... try again
My version of events? Historic fact, sorry. try again.
And yes, the world doesn't think about these things, because, the mass of humanity are stupid.
America has done a lot of bad things, like every other nation, but has done more good for the world than bad, unlike other nations.

[relaxo]

I'm fairly sure that was a failure of communism in itself. Reagan talked big, and U.S. diplomacy may have given a little nudge, but for the U.S. to take the lion's share of the credit is naive.


Nah, it's known fact, the USA started an arms race with them in the Reagan years. The Soviets tried to keep up, eventually 25% of their GDP went into military spending. They bankrupted their economy, and got bogged down in Afghanistan. As any pointless war will do (..yes look out USA, who are spending way too much on Iraq).
So America does get a pat on the back, and a smaller pat for NATO nations.


There was no reason they wouldn't still be communist today (look at Cuba, North Korea)

[kendoiwan]

Wow you actually believe that nonsense? Enjoy your bliss then my friend... I don't have the time to invest in poking holes in that B.S you kicking...

[Serotonin]

Nah, it's known fact, the USA started an arms race with them in the Reagan years. The Soviets tried to keep up, eventually 25% of their GDP went into military spending. They bankrupted their economy, and got bogged down in Afghanistan.

Which is more of a testament to the crap economies and management of Eastern Europe than it is to any sort of U.S. prescience that could be claimed.... the U.S. were just looking to protect their own and Russia et al. made lots of wrong decisions. History can be twisted to inflate the influence of the countries that prevail.



There was no reason they wouldn't still be communist today (look at Cuba, North Korea)

Disagree. In Europe there is so much shoulder rubbing with capitalist countries that the friction would have nudged some sort of tipping point.... and it did. N. Korea survives because of its proximity and arrangement with China, and Cuban communism is only surviving because Castro is still alive.

[Claverhouse]

Communism collapsed through it's own internal contradictions.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Dr. Haight]

Communism collapsed through it's own internal contradictions.

That is the predominate factor, but not the only reason for the collapse of Soviet Communism (and or, Stalinism - depending on your preference).

[relaxo]

Wow you actually believe that nonsense? Enjoy your bliss then my friend... I don't have the time to invest in poking holes in that B.S you kicking...

history is BS! good one. So I'll be ignorant in bliss, you can be ignorant in anger.

Iran-contra...that made same laugh too, nice buzz word. Know anything about it? Actually know anything about Sandanistas at all?

I know you have no time to invest looking into things that miught be contrary to your emotional beliefs.

America Akbar!

[In...TP]

us is an easy target.

[Ka.avik]

Actually know anything about Sandanistas at all?
I know they're a political party, like the republicans here. And the Sandanistas have nicaragua like the republicans here ... though my information is a few years out of date.

I've heard it said that history is written by the victors. I don't totally know, either way, because I wasn't there. I do know that whoever edits the list of "popular smilies" needs to stop smoking that crack from Joft's cave-metaphor paper.

[Claverhouse]

That is the predominate factor, but not the only reason for the collapse of Soviet Communism (and or, Stalinism - depending on your preference).

Stalin was only carrying out, in no cruder fashion than the chap who instituted the supreme measure of social defence for 12-yr-olds, the logical imperatives of V. I. Lenin --- so to blame him for most of the tragedies that composed the CCCP is merely disingenious buck-passing.

A few other reasons might be the dying of revolutionary enthusiasm once the populace saw through the illusions offered and settled down into not unhappy quiesence; the inability of state socialism to provide on a par with capitalism; the foreign adventurism necessitated by the theology even when it was against the interests of 'Russia' --- even 'Revolution in One Country' was insufficient against the imperative to support communist struggles everywhere, however they refrained from encouraging uprisings; the lack of any ultimate purpose in creating the future communist perfected state in an atheistical world-outlook ( eg: 'WTF should I struggle to make my wretched descendants better off, when they too will just die ?' ) etc.; but mostly it failed because although the USSR won it's greatest challenge, it was also defeated by Hitler, since his timing to launch the crusade against communism robbed it of the only chance to seize Europe and bankrupted their future --- and Asia, the only other land-mass adjacent, was denied them since subsequently the Chinese made their own communist empire which refused to acknowledge the USSR's supremacy. The aftermath of the war down to the 1980s was merely a relentless decline. Reagan's actions and economic warfare was mainly shadow-boxing and only at most hurried along the inexorable dying-process.

This is a nice site:

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=28

An interview today with Lenin


Technological progress is important for building communism, as is raises labor productivity. That is why socialist labor productivity has always topped that of the West."
"It didn't, unfortunately."
"But weren't the Soviet workers more interested in the product of their work because it belonged to them, as opposed to the Western laborers who toiled for the hated capitalist employer?"
"In fact, the Soviet workers were stealing everything as they thought it belonged to them anyway. They were also heard saying, The government pretends that it pays us, and we pretend that we do the work."
"Traitors! I'd have ordered exemplary executions at every workplace! Every office!"
"Stalin did just that. But after his death the discipline has dwindled."
The Teacher of Toiling Masses went silent for a while, stirring a bag of NutraSweet® into the Styrofoam® cup of Starbucks® coffee with a Dispozo® straw.
"Weren't the Soviet clocks the fastest, and the Soviet microchips the largest in the world?" he asked quietly.
"Exactly."


A faint smile touched the Great Philosopher's lips and disappeared in his reddish mustache. "I had a perfect housing solution," he went on. "It was called peace to the shacks, war to the palaces. You know what a communal apartment is? It's a former palace that looks like a shack, filled with a dozen working families who all use one bathroom. We had a lot of palaces left over from the bourgeoisie, but the greedy capitalists had not built enough for everybody. My perfect solution worked only on condition of zero population growth."
"So Stalin was actually forced to decimate the population. That explains it."
"From what I hear, Stalin took it even further. He increased urban square footage by packing one half of the population in box cars and shipping them off to the tundra. Not a bad plan either. The resulting budget surplus was used to improve the living conditions for the rest, trough statuary projects and golden murals glorifying the Party's leaders. Beautiful proletarian art, really worth dying for. I'm known to be a connoisseur."
"Speaking of Stalin, when he died his body was also mummified and put in the Mausoleum. What were your feelings at the time?"
"What would your feelings be if they turned your private Mausoleum into a freaking communal apartment?


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[htb]

but mostly it failed becauseit was the proverbial boot stomping on a human face until 1991.

Before the Soviet empire fell, we heard "coexistence." After the Soviet empire fell, we're told "inevitability."

[Claverhouse]

Oh, and here's a good thread, Peoples Commissar Hillary demands the death penalty for James Carter.

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=183



By Leonid Fuku
7/21/2005, 9:55 pm
RE: Purge of James Earl Carter

Summary of accusations with appropriate penal code citations:

Under penal code 58-1: Definition of counter-revolutionary activity, I hereby accuse Former Party Member Carter of:

#1. Obvious attempt to undermine the authority of the Politburo through attacks on one Hillary Clinton (see http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=170). (http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=170%29.) A violation of code * 58-2 (Armed uprising or intervention with the goal to seize power).

Penalty: up to death with confiscation, including formal recognition as "enemy of workers".

#2. Attemps to usurp the authority of the Politburo through scurrilous attacks on one Hillary Clinton (again see http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=170), (http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=170%29,) a clear violation of code * 58-10 (Counter-revolutionary propaganda and agitation).

Penalty: up to 6 months of imprisonment. In the conditions of unrest or war: same as 58.2.

While there are more charges, they are superfluous.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Claverhouse]

Before the Soviet empire fell, we heard "coexistence." After the Soviet empire fell, we're told "inevitability."

It was inevitable, just as inevitable as the future collapse of the USA.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Serotonin]

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=183



Heheheh. Although methinks they think too much of themselves....

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Brain_Capitalist_550.gif

[SeierTapt]

What has America done, or is doing, that plenty of other countries haven't done at some point in their own history? We've done our share of both good and bad, although I don't think enough of us(Americans of all walks) are keeping in mind the old adage that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[booyalab]

although I don't think enough of us(Americans of all walks) are keeping in mind the old adage that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
how are we supposed to do that when kendoiwan wont even tell us, specifically, why history paints America as the worst country to ever exist?

[booyalab]

Heheheh. Although methinks they think too much of themselves....

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Brain_Capitalist_550.gif

cute, although I'd say my blame America gland is much larger, since liberals make up an unfortunate proportion. And about that "keeping money that you earn" area....

http://usinfo.state.gov/scv/Archive/2005/May/10-36789.html


Another stereotype --conservatives are hard-hearted and less charitable and compassionate than liberals -- is also untrue, according to Professor Arthur Brooks.


Political ideology is not the key to charity, Brooks said. Religious faith coupled with skepticism of government?s capacities seems the most important characteristic of those who give.

[Serotonin]

I found the "Talk radio addiction center" quite interesting. Is that an attempt at self-parody or an assertion that talk radio is in fact a good thing? I'm honestly confused.

[kendoiwan]

history is BS! good one. So I'll be ignorant in bliss, you can be ignorant in anger.

Iran-contra...that made same laugh too, nice buzz word. Know anything about it? Actually know anything about Sandanistas at all?

I know you have no time to invest looking into things that miught be contrary to your emotional beliefs.

America Akbar!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair
Now kindly take your head out of your ass<_<

[kendoiwan]

how are we supposed to do that when kendoiwan wont even tell us, specifically, why history paints America as the worst country to ever exist?


We are the #1 supplier of weapons to the entire globe... we routinely supply both sides of a given conflict... not to mention our role in the drug trade that we are supposedly waging a war against...

Edit: I never said the worst country in history... they go to great lengths to make sure we can go to disney land and have as much credit card debt as we want... now if you happen not to live here... that's another story all together...

[Lee]

how are we supposed to do that when kendoiwan wont even tell us, specifically, why history paints America as the worst country to ever exist?It's self-evident you fool! Nobody can get rich unless they make someone else poorer while getting there, don't you know even basic Marxonimics!?

The wealth of the United States is proof of their terribleness. Just how many people do you need to exploit to get that wealthy!? America is terrible, even when it is doing good, it is only doing good for some alterior (and evil) motive.

[kendoiwan]

It's self-evident you fool! Nobody can get rich unless they make someone else poorer while getting there, don't you know even basic Marxonimics!?

The wealth of the United States is proof of their terribleness. Just how many people do you need to exploit to get that wealthy!? America is terrible, even when it is doing good, it is only doing good for some alterior (and evil) motive.

Okay so now address my real point<_<

[Lee]

Okay so now address my real point<_<I have yet to identify it.

Even the phrase "America did x" is riddled with ambiguity and problems. If you filter history to only include the mistakes and undesirable, every nation is unjust, incompetent, corrupt, evil terrible or whatever.

[kendoiwan]

We are the #1 supplier of weapons to the entire globe... we routinely supply both sides of a given conflict... not to mention our role in the drug trade that we are supposedly waging a war against...

Edit: I never said the worst country in history... they go to great lengths to make sure we can go to disney land and have as much credit card debt as we want... now if you happen not to live here... that's another story all together...

try paying attention...

[charred_heart]

I have a question: Do the people of the U.S believe that their country is the most moral and the most committed to good for this age? If that's the case, I'd be happy to put the U.S to the purity test. If however the people in the U.S understand that their country, like any other, has been at fault in the past I wouldn't make a big deal out of it.

[s'box]

Ya it's terrible. Destroying nazi germany, blowing up suicide nation japan, putting an end to totalitarian communism in eastern europe not to mention stopping it from spreading to other nations, getting rid of Saddam and the Taliban, getting indpendence for Cuba, stealing away Texas from a mexican dictator, taking over the Philipeans from the Spanish who treated them so nice, telling the Birtish and French they couldn't take over the Suez canal from the Egyptians, sending billions of dollars every year in aid to nations all over the earth, bringing business which creates jobs, products and services, promoting democracy, saying israel has a right to exist, helping stop ethnic masacres in Yugoslavia. ya just terrible.

Of course no other nations screw other countries, just the USA.

Your inclusion of the phillipines here really shows the hallowness of this whole sort of thinking.

As though somehow american colonial rule was a good thing just cause it was american, nevermind the 100,000+ killed and at times rather brutal colonial rule to maintain the occupation after we promised them independence. and cuba, which was so selflessly freed, and then sold off to the richest american contributors, leaving it in mafia hands under a succession of strong armed quasi-dictators leading to a real one.

As far as leninist style communism is concerned, even from a sensible marxist standpoint it was bound to fail. 'conciousness determines being' is a principle marxist tenant, in soviet style communism, they acted like buerocrats and capitalists so thats what they became, especially after the kruschev era, the soviet state was just a big corporation. Its the same pattern everywhere, US or none.


What has America done, or is doing, that plenty of other countries haven't done at some point in their own history? We've done our share of both good and bad, although I don't think enough of us(Americans of all walks) are keeping in mind the old adage that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

How many democratic governments has canada overthrown because they didn't suit them?

Even my high school textbooks (hardly a leftwing or daring sort of source) has it written that the US overthrew democratic governments in guatemala, Chile and Iran (and they hated our dictator so much now we have those folks who are just so cuddly these days) just out of their own economic interests. This doesnt even touch on military campaigns everywhere and constant support of one bastard dictator or another.

You could blame (poorly) the cold war then, but when the government of venezuela had a coup a couple years ago, the US again supported the new regime right off the bat. Something about attempting to overthrow forcefully any government or movement that it doesnt like for whatever reason seems to put the US as something a little more crude than run of the mill realpolitik.

[kendoiwan]

:worthy:

[floid]

in a world shrunk by technology we will have to eventually go beyond corporatism and nationalism to some sort of planetary co-operation (not competion) if we wish to survive and have an opportunity (as the whole human race) to thrive.

That will mean that banks and large corporations must stop writing the rules on how we must all earn a living if we did not inherit, legally steal, win, or otherwise fall upon a large sum of money and governments must stop defining who is "us" and who is "them", telling us what language we must speak, what religion we must espouse, how much we must pay them for "governing" us, and what we must use as a medium of economic exchange.

If people want to gamble with money let them go to Monte Carlo, Las Vegas, play a lottery, or enjoy a Saturday night poker game. But if they want actual wealth that is backed by something of value in the real world they should have to earn it as most of us are required to do. Fractional reserve banking must go. Banks loan you money they don't have, expect you to create the full principal by working, pay it back to them, and then pay them "interest" for the "labor" that was involved in entering the amount of non-existent money you borrowed from them into a computer. If you played Monopoly that way you would be accused of cheating and kicked out of the game.


Except in the context of the parlour games of Economics, Politics, and Religion the person on the other side of the earth is exactly the same as you in every way that matters.
Fair play makes the game more fun for everyone in the long run -- even those who have become accustomed to winning by cheating.

[htb]

Originally Posted by Claverhouse
It was inevitable, just as inevitable as the future collapse of the USA.You're on: fifty bucks.

You'll be able to wire Western Union from the Well-Meaning Anarchist's Wing in Hell, right? ;)



Originally Posted by Kendoiwan
We are the #1 supplier of weapons to the entire globe...Moscow, actually, has recently superseded Washington in leading arms transfers -- but to rather different clients. Information is care of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (http://www.sipri.org). The United States has been the chief supplier of such terrible places as Israel, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, Greece, Turkey, South Korea and Japan. Russia/the USSR, by contrast, has been the chief supplier of models of Elysium like (Ba'athist) Iraq, Iran, China and Burma/Myanmar. Notice the pattern.

[kendoiwan]

The contrast is that we supply people who we find it in OUR interest to supply and they supply people who it is in THEIR interest to supply... all the rest is subjective...

[kendoiwan]

Moscow, actually, has recently superseded Washington in leading arms transfers -- but to rather different clients. Information is care of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (http://www.sipri.org). The United States has been the chief supplier of such terrible places as Israel, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, Greece, Turkey, South Korea and Japan. Russia/the USSR, by contrast, has been the chief supplier of models of Elysium like (Ba'athist) Iraq, Iran, China and Burma/Myanmar. Notice the pattern.


Interesting numbers... my only quam is that these are only the documented exchanges... for instance I know that a majority of the guns in Jamaica come from the U.S. via covert operations involving the drug trade in columbia...

Edit: another thing is they don't specify what kind of weapons... conventional is a pretty broad term

[Architectonic]

To fight the Iranians (which is ok by my standards).

Could you elaborate on this?

You seem to have questionable beliefs about sovereignty - ie, an economically powerful nation automatically has the right to enforce its morals and laws on other nations.


in a world shrunk by technology we will have to eventually go beyond corporatism and nationalism to some sort of planetary co-operation (not competion) if we wish to survive and have an opportunity (as the whole human race) to thrive.

I agree.

Ideally, the soverignty of nations needs to be re-ordered, so that issues are dealt with at the most efficient level of government, such that politcal freedom is maximised. A number of political issues (such as global enviromental issues, mediation of wars etc) need to be dealt with on a higher level (in some ways, what the UN was ideally meant to be - but not how it is currently) and other issues should be devolved to lower levels.

I have ideas about altering the monetary system, that will completely change the current banking systems, but I'll leave that discussion for another time.

[Lee]

try paying attention...I was paying attention. I stand by my previous post.

[kendoiwan]

Well then I'm in absolutely in awe of all the people who posted after you who actually got the point, such a feat as it was for the likes of you...:worthy:

[ptGatsby]

America is just another country. That's all there is to it. Europe had their lively years, this century is America's. They are just really good at it.

I find most Americans ignore their government's involvement in stuff like Tokin bay, or that their government produced plans like The northwood plans. They don't know about their governments activities in Guatemala, or even in the Middle East. Or Indonesia, or chile or even Cuba! They aren't aware of how many military bases they have all over the globe... They don't know about echelon, or any of the other myriad of eyes that watch. They are immune to the evidence and cases about drug trafficking by their government... if you look into it, lots of suppression there too. Most are unaware that assassinations go on, despite being illegal... Certainly in Iraq and the like, civilians are no obstacle to those attempts. Also covered under 'illegal combatants' now.

Likewise, its not exactly like they have the best researched and written manuals on how to torture people... of course, just for information reasons. There is no evidence of them ever using such techniques... Ignoring systemic problems always seems to happen, regardless of country.

Most are unaware of how amoral most of their agencies act, like recruiting known nazis and the like, raising despots or creating chaos via uprisings and such.

Most have no idea whatsoever just how omnipresent their actions have been in the last century. What is also scary is just how well these actions are presented. It doesn't matter if it was wholesale atrocities like in Vietnam, or the support of ethnic purges in South America or Africa... what mattered was that the results were to make somewhere or someone pro-american. Anyone not pro-american was an enemy and needed to be pacified via force. This runs way deep in American culture right now, too. Its pretty ugly when it emerges... but its worse when it taints peoples views of what is right and wrong.

But governments are governments, and countries are countries. Anyone with power does it... and with the current imbalance in global power, it is invariable that the one at the top will slide into the same pattern as its predecessors. Its all history, over and over again.

[Lee]

There are three problems with all of this.

First, before too strongly condemning America and its role on the world stage, think about the alternatives. If America hadn't done x in place y in year z, then something completely different would have to have happened instead. There is the implicit assumption lurking behind peoples thoughts that all would have been fine and dandy if America hadn't done anything, but in most cases there is no justification for that assumption. In fact, things could have been a whole lot worse without their intervention.

Second, history is riddled with countries all meddling with each others business, and often this meddling has less than desirable consequences. Look at Africa and the impact European imperialism had on it, and the subsequent political developments. Look at South America, where the Spanish systematically exterminated the natives and proceeded to have civial war after civil war for centuries. America is not unique in any way, and if anything it fairly well-behaved in comparison to some nations throughout history.

Third, I am not entirely sure what "America did x" means, since America is not an organism with a mind that does things. The reality is that the people who made the political decisions at one time are not the same as those who made them at other times, many individuals are involved, often with no individual dictating events. While it is fine to say "America did x" for the sake of expediency, you cannot take the metaphor too far. It may be entirely appropriate to hold a person responsible for a crime they committed 20 years ago, but the same is far less easily said about a nation, especially one such as the US with ever chaning political influences and culture.

[kendoiwan]

American history sucks... whenever I read about the effects U.S. policy had on the lives of others in the various nations we meddled in it depresses me...

....

Okay first things first I didn't say America did X... second of all in the last Century no one "meddled" bigger or better...
Third saying that if we didn't screw things up theres no telling if it would've been different for the better is as weak an argument as it gets... I expect better from you Lee

[ptGatsby]

In fact, things could have been a whole lot worse without their intervention.


If I don't like someone and kill them, there is no reasonable excuse of saying "it could of been worse". Even if that man is beating his wife or something, murder is murder. It is the same for countries.

More to the point, most acts were to remove a leader who commited nothing horrendous, only to replace them with someone worse. The "it could of been worse, you never know" has never been a reasonable excuse.

In cases where there is a direct threat, then there is some justification, I know. The US has a long history of faking a direct threat and then doing something about it.



The reality is that the people who made the political decisions at one time are not the same as those who made them at other times, many individuals are involved, often with no individual dictating events.


One event, maybe. An entire string of events? That's systemic, be it social, political or whatever the root cause is. Passing blame is no excuse, especially when you represent hundreds of millions of people. Never mind repeating the same error over and over again... when speaking for hundreds of millions of people!



America is not unique in any way, and if anything it fairly well-behaved in comparison to some nations throughout history.


I'm not sure about "well behaved", least from the time of its existance forward. "Not as capable" might be more accurate. A lot of "well, not our fault, we didn't do anything"... kinda like the kid buying the bullies at school. How that makes them better behaved...? Well, I guess it depends on the definition. It had its ups and downs too, for sure. Not everything was bad, just like any other country.

Regardless, America isn't unique. That's the point. Their crusade of enlightment is as horrific as the other crusades of enlightment. Their colonization, militarization and everything else is just as bad as the others... just another country, just another cause, just another piece of history.

[Lee]

Okay first things first I didn't say America did X...I wasn't specifically directing that criticism toward you, but nonetheless, your language suggest you hold the attitude I described.


second of all in the last Century no one "meddled" bigger or better...You clearly miss the point.


Third saying that if we didn't screw things up theres no telling if it would've been different for the better is as weak an argument as it gets... I expect better from you LeeWhat the fuck? Are you as retarded as you pretend?

Look, it is a very relevent point, especially when everyone is assuming that the alternative to US intervention is always better. It's all well and good saying "America was reponsible or helped to cause x, and x was bad," but the alternative y is not necessarily going to be better or simply the absence of x.

Whatever series of events occur, someone is going to come away complaining, or pointing out the bad consequences. But to properly gauge the negative or positive impact of any particular US intervention, we would have to compare it to what would have happened otherwise. Sadly, this isn't something we do directly, the best you can hope to do is to point to all the terrible things that happen whether or not the US are involved.

Even if we could say that in 19xx the US government instigated a policy which helped cause 10,000 death in country y, is that automatically worse than the alternative? What if 20,000 people were to die under different circumstances if the US did not intervene.

Simply pointing and saying "bad stuff happened" is childish and unhelpful, bad stuff always happens, what matters is whether it was worse than the alternatives.

The irony is that it would take little research for me to be able to rattle off many cases where the US should have intervened, but where they didn't. Times when they should have acted to preserve freedom, or even their own economic interests, but they refrained.

[kendoiwan]

Thankfully PTGatsby already poked holes in that BS you're kicking...

[Lee]

If I don't like someone and kill them, there is no reasonable excuse of saying "it could of been worse". Even if that man is beating his wife or something, murder is murder. It is the same for countries.Nonsense. Of course it could have been worse, what if the guy was going to be indirectly responsible for a war? Or was going to help create a brutal dictatorship and be indirectly responsible for millions of deaths?

All life is about doing better than the alternatives. Everything you do has costs and potentially harmful side-effects, there is no escaping imperfection. But out of the alternatives which could occur, we are always seeking the least imperfect.

I am not trying to justify every last piece of US foreign policy, on the grounds that it would have been worse if they didn't intervene. I am simply pointing out the implicit assumption that it would have been better otherwise is unjustified.


More to the point, most acts were to remove a leader who commited nothing horrendous, only to replace them with someone worse. The "it could of been worse, you never know" has never been a reasonable excuse.I am not trying to excuse anybody of anything. But the facts remain that quite often it is impossible to say whether things would have necessarily been better, plenty of absolutely horrendous things have happened in the world in which the US has played no part.


One event, maybe. An entire string of events? That's systemic, be it social, political or whatever the root cause is. Passing blame is no excuse, especially when you represent hundreds of millions of people. Never mind repeating the same error over and over again... when speaking for hundreds of millions of people!I am not trying to pass blame on anyone, but my point is still valid, the whole personification of entire countries is lazy thinking, leading to all kinds of stupid comments like this:

"we routinely supply both sides of a given conflict... not to mention our role in the drug trade that we are supposedly waging a war against..."

As though "we" applies in this case, he's trying to collectivize guilt onto people who didn't have anything to do with these decisions and in all likelyhood oppossed them. It's clever rhetoric, but that's about it.

Passing blame in some cases can be completely justified, it may well be the case that the people in charge at any one time are completely innocent of the mistakes of their predecessors. You have to be able to disinguish when it is justifed and when not. You cannot presuppose that attempting to pass the blame is no excuse.


I'm not sure about "well behaved", least from the time of its existance forward. "Not as capable" might be more accurate. A lot of "well, not our fault, we didn't do anything"... kinda like the kid buying the bullies at school. How that makes them better behaved...? Well, I guess it depends on the definition. It had its ups and downs too, for sure. Not everything was bad, just like any other country.

Regardless, America isn't unique. That's the point. Their crusade of enlightment is as horrific as the other crusades of enlightment. Their colonization, militarization and everything else is just as bad as the others... just another country, just another cause, just another piece of history.Sure, I suppose that the US may be the best intentioned though, even if they screw up a lot.

[htb]

Originally Posted by Lee
Third, I am not entirely sure what "America did x" means, since America is not an organism with a mind that does things.Quite right; anthropomorphization of countries signals the end of a serious discussion. In American terms, the only semblance of continuity within a generation would be careerists in executive branch bureaucracies.

The three most prosperous nations had their current constitutions written by Americans: the United States, Japan and Germany. More meddling, please.

[Lee]

Thankfully PTGatsby already poked holes in that BS you're kicking...He poked holes in nothing.

All I am doing is pointing out the lazy thinking going on in this thread.

What I was not doing was trying to justify any particular US policy.

[kendoiwan]

Okay so the two cop outs are as follows "there is no such thing as a U.S. policy" as if we don't have an official postion on Cuba for instance no matter who's in office. That's just false.
The second one is "America did X" as if it isn't a pattern or systemic.
This is just blatant denial. Again allow me to focus on just ONE instance that is emblematic of U.S. foriegn policy in the last century.

In Jamaica, we supplied one party with guns and drugs in an attempt to play them against the other party who was to "marxist" for our liking and destablize things... The Jamaican policy at the time was to try to be independent economically from the U.S. as a result the U.S. purposefully and willfully sabotaged that gov't. And furthermore pressured the Jamaican gov't to accept terms on a loan that in effect crippled the Jamaican economy, forcing them to buy goods from the U.S. that could have been easily grown or provided by the Jamaicans for themselves...


So to recap, we gave them guns, we helped them smuggled drugs, we made them dependant on us against their best interest, all so our citizens could have a nice place to vacation? Or was there some other reason why we couldn't allow them to be economically independent from us that was really in their best interest too?

[ptGatsby]

Nonsense. Of course it could have been worse, what if the guy was going to be indirectly responsible for a war? Or was going to help create a brutal dictatorship and be indirectly responsible for millions of deaths?


Nonsense is using "what could of been" as a basis of saying "doing what I did was ok".

Claiming future knowledge of what could of happened has always been considered a logical fallacy, and it continues to be one.

You used a what-if scenario in your example, what about the other side?

What-if overthrowing that guy would cause civil war and hundreds of thousands of dead?

That happened. That's the other side of the what-if that you are using. What if he was a brutal dictator turned out that his alternative that the US supported was much worse. Or maybe not. What if the other guy was worse?

You speak of an individual level, where the only exception is when a clearly defined act is prevented, normally beyond any reasonable doubt. This requires a relatively direct act to be prevented, mostly at the individual level.

These are a minority, even in an individual's life.



As though "we" applies in this case, he's trying to collectivize guilt onto people who didn't have anything to do with these decisions and in all likelyhood oppossed them.


Funny that, in a democracy, blame can be shifted easier, even though its suppose to be a people's government. Or republic, if you prefer, though I suppose having a representitive do the work for you is a fair argument.

In any case, I wasn't agreeing with him, only disagreeing with you. You also use these groupings. He was referring to the US and America. Just like you did in this post. What he said was fair... if it was a single person or group, then the blame should be applied there. However, both his examples have 40 or more years of dozens of examples. That cannot be applied to any one person, and should be applied to the group identity.



Sure, I suppose that the US may be the best intentioned though, even if they screw up a lot.


A pretty weak excuse... and I'd call that lazy thinking, too. Similar with am not trying to justify every last piece of US foreign policy,.

As you said, the 'US' doesn't have a set foreign policy - it fluctuates. Yet, you group it together?

What he said is true. What you said is true. America, as an identity, has continuously done certain things. That's fair game for grouping them against a certain identity.

It'd be like having an airline crash ten times more often, but saying "you can fly that airline, individuals are at fault"... even as planes continues to crash.

[Hustler]

Third, I am not entirely sure what "America did x" means, since America is not an organism with a mind that does things. The reality is that the people who made the political decisions at one time are not the same as those who made them at other times, many individuals are involved, often with no individual dictating events. While it is fine to say "America did x" for the sake of expediency, you cannot take the metaphor too far. It may be entirely appropriate to hold a person responsible for a crime they committed 20 years ago, but the same is far less easily said about a nation, especially one such as the US with ever chaning political influences and culture.

America is a memetic organism. An organism with an agenda. Just like the Catholic church or Oxford University or the Zapatistas. What America has done is real, not metaphorical. Memeplexes like these are every bit as accountable for their actions and effects as living organisms are. When a memeplex is determined undesirable (Nazi Germany), it is eliminated or replaced. Much like an undesirable person.

[ptGatsby]

The three most prosperous nations had their current constitutions written by Americans: the United States, Japan and Germany. More meddling, please.


o_O Writing a constitution and meddling are interchangable now? Holy smokes, is that ever against the constitutions your write. Apparently writing one then ignoring it is the secret of your success... or something...

Also, I'd love to see your source. As far as GDP and the like goes, per capita, Japan and Germany are somewhere below 15th. Least, far as I know.

[htb]

Originally posted by ptGatsby
Writing a constitution and meddling are interchangable now? Holy smokes, is that ever against the constitutions your write. Apparently writing one then ignoring it is the secret of your success... or something...There was a little thing -- besides the respective 1946 and 1949 promulgations of the Japanese constitution and the Federal Republic's Basic Law, involving many billions of dollars and millions of hours of hundreds of thousands of Americans -- known as postwar occupation. Those two reconstructions are the quintessence of directive American intervention, the results of which stand quite stably against grand unifying theories that are made of either a moral simplification of the United States into "just another empire," which is what you seem to have attempted some ways up the thread, or of apocrypha like Kendoiwan's Jamaican tale.


As far as GDP and the like goes, per capita, Japan and Germany are somewhere below 15th. Least, far as I know.Per capita isn't the best measure of a country's raw economic power.

[kendoiwan]

like I said once you get past WWII (which we only got involved in because it looked like Germany/Axis Powers would win and then we'd be isolated against them, combined with Pearl Harbor, so you can't really make a moral argument for that without being revisionist) and Bosnia, not many other postive marks on the report card in the last century...

[Hustler]

Per capita isn't the best measure of a country's raw economic power.

Here's what you said:


The three most prosperous nations had their current constitutions written by Americans: the United States, Japan and Germany. More meddling, please.

So, then, what are you talking about? Prosperity or "raw economic power?" If per capita GDP isn't the best way to measure the economic entity you're talking about, what is?

[Claverhouse]

Still, had Japan and Germany both won their wars I should suppose that both would now still be amongst 'the most prosperous nations', and without the benefit of Amerika's imbecile constitutional creationing.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[kendoiwan]

God Save the Queen

[Serotonin]

Third, I am not entirely sure what "America did x" means, since America is not an organism with a mind that does things. The reality is that the people who made the political decisions at one time are not the same as those who made them at other times, many individuals are involved, often with no individual dictating events. While it is fine to say "America did x" for the sake of expediency, you cannot take the metaphor too far. It may be entirely appropriate to hold a person responsible for a crime they committed 20 years ago, but the same is far less easily said about a nation, especially one such as the US with ever chaning political influences and culture.

Just to be the :devil:'s advocate, wouldn't this same concept apply to Marxism and the installment of socialism if we had this discussion 100 years ago? We know now that Marxism is incompatible with human nature, but hindsight is 20/20. I'm not suggesting the U.S. memeplex (thanks Hustler) will cause as much damage as the Marxist memeplex did, but Lee, I sense your argument is just straying a bit too far into apologist territory.

It's always a crapshoot. The more history we learn, the more paradoxes and ambiguities (e.g. Iraq) the present throws at us. We just don't know how it will turn out.

[s'box]

All life is about doing better than the alternatives. Everything you do has costs and potentially harmful side-effects, there is no escaping imperfection. But out of the alternatives which could occur, we are always seeking the least imperfect.

I am not trying to justify every last piece of US foreign policy, on the grounds that it would have been worse if they didn't intervene. I am simply pointing out the implicit assumption that it would have been better otherwise is unjustified

I think coining this as simply an implicit assumption would be just as simplistic a way at looking at the negative image of american policy here. Saying that the complaints are too simplistic with a simplistic image of the complaint makes for turbulent logical games.

Especially since in most tangible cases it wouldn't have much ground to stand on and not being able to truly predict alternate scenarios doesn't nearly invalidate a situation where very often we're against 'us did x' because of what y could've been and what z was.

For example, one case of us imperialism in the sense of sponsored coups leading democratic governments into dictatorships. We saw the sort of scenario that theses people lived in and can assume that this scenario would continue for some years. Now if we have a murderous regime which took over from a democratic government, and we're complaining about us policy aiding this sceario to happen, we have indeed considered situation y and there was no implicit assumption but a rational and likely assumption which is necesary to judge any action ever.

Really I don't see any lazy thinking, only your perception of it as most of this thread has been with abstracts and not particular tangible units of history to argue over.


There was a little thing -- besides the respective 1946 and 1949 promulgations of the Japanese constitution and the Federal Republic's Basic Law, involving many billions of dollars and millions of hours of hundreds of thousands of Americans -- known as postwar occupation. Those two reconstructions are the quintessence of directive American intervention, the results of which stand quite stably against grand unifying theories that are made of either a moral simplification of the United States into "just another empire," which is what you seem to have attempted some ways up the thread, or of apocrypha like Kendoiwan's Jamaican tale.

Rome built roads too.

[ptGatsby]

There was a little thing -- besides the respective 1946 and 1949 promulgations of the Japanese constitution and the Federal Republic's Basic Law, involving many billions of dollars and millions of hours of hundreds of thousands of Americans -- known as postwar occupation. Those two reconstructions are the quintessence of directive American intervention, the results of which stand quite stably against grand unifying theories that are made of either a moral simplification of the United States into "just another empire," which is what you seem to have attempted some ways up the thread, or of apocrypha like Kendoiwan's Jamaican tale.


Whoa wordiness batman.

Let me rephrase this;

The US meddling is ok because two countries prospered by American occupation more than makes up the dozens of countries have had genocides and civil wars due to our influences. We aren't all bad, so you can't complain about the majority of our actions, cause we did something good a while back. Its unfair because we meant well and are... well... different. Everything we do, despite being the same actions as other countries, is somehow special cause we are different.

Hopefully you don't extend it to "American should bomb and burn countries to the ground, then occupy them, until the entire planet is pacified and rich!" mentality that I've seen...

Its not another empire. Its just a country, like all the rest. Delusions of grandeur come and go too. Normally leaving the person bankrupt.



So, then, what are you talking about? Prosperity or "raw economic power?" If per capita GDP isn't the best way to measure the economic entity you're talking about, what is?


I'd like to know too. Maybe we should go on quality of life... or manufactoring ability. Or Maybe we should only consider trade deficiets and what not... cause we all know that Germany, the US and Japan are certainly positive sum countries... It can't be amount of people...

What metric would be right for prosperity or raw economic power? Or prosperity, whichever you prefer.

[htb]

Originally Posted by Hustler:
So, then, what are you talking about? Prosperity or "raw economic power?" If per capita GDP isn't the best way to measure the economic entity you're talking about, what is?"Prosperous nation" referred to the breadth and relative stability of each country's economy (contemporary stagnancy of Japan and Germany aside). Alan Greenspan once countered the argument you're trying to make: during a congressional hearing, he advised a United States senator not to compare Luxembourg to the United States, no matter what the numbers on the little chart say.

[Hustler]

"Prosperous nation" referred to the breadth and relative stability of each country's economy (contemporary stagnancy of Japan and Germany aside). Alan Greenspan once countered the argument you're trying to make: during a congressional hearing, he advised a United States senator not to compare Luxembourg to the United States, no matter what the numbers on the little chart say.

Alright, so how do you measure it? If not GDP per capita, then what? And what was Greenspan's argument? Why are you being so nebulous? Just what the hell are you trying to say? Is China more prosperous than Luxembourg?

[Wiki]

I couldnt agree with you more. I was just saying today that you always knew the corruption existed but the only difference today is that they dont give a shit about appearing to not give a shit at the federal level.

All these billions of dollars wasted on false bureaucracies stacked with cronyism. 66 billion more needed for the war, print it.

M3 number getting embarrassingly large, no problem, we just stop reporting it in March of this year, problem solved!

Homeland Security was created and since then a record number of illegals have permeated our nation. It is as if the backdoor was left open upon its inception.

Big Pharma and Oil own our asses for the remainder of this administration. We have ass loads of coal in this country and it becomes economical to make gasoline from it when oil exceeds $35 per barrel.

Yet we have a surplus of crude and the price is still double of what should be sustainable in a 'free' market, and might be for the remainder of this administration, while Exxon Mobil is scoring record profits by charging us record prices.

Start a war and you have a giant loophole where a leader of a democratic government can bypass or break whatever laws its corporate owned fascist asses wish to break.

How will other countries try to hurt America? By punching it in the dollar. Creating bourses that offer alternative currency options for the purchase of the commodities that previously commanded the usage of US dollars.

If it trades on a free market, the demand can be crippled. Create alliances between its debt holders and unload it on the free market. It has only been 36 years since the creation of the fiat currency known as the Federal Reserve Note or U.S. Dollar.

Thank goodness China and Japan dont like each other or that would be 30% of our debt right there, but this administration doesnt seem to care how many enemies they make, by the time it is finished these countries may all be financial allies.

So the fed gets defensive and makes our debt more attractive by raising the interest rates to temporarily manipulate and boost the dollar, but it is developing a ponzi like structure, with a come what may attitude.

[htb]

Alright, so how do you measure it? If not GDP per capita, then what? And what was Greenspan's argument? Why are you being so nebulous? Just what the hell are you trying to say? Is China more prosperous than Luxembourg?I'm measuring by nominal GDP as an expression of the power of a given economy. Per capita and purchasing power parity are too selective as measurements to be relied upon; under those terms a larger and more variable modern economy will be at a disadvantage when compared to a smaller and more focused modern economy. The senator to which Greenspan responded was trying to make some point about Luxembourg's personal wealth exceeding that of the United States' -- as part of a derogation of Bush's tax policy, I think -- and Greenspan pointed out that differences in geographical size and markets made a comparison specious. It would be like claiming that a Honda hybrid's efficient engine makes it a more powerful car than a 1972 Chevy Caprice.

The three largest world economies are, and have been for some time, America's, Japan's and Germany's. Longevity is critical. Your offer of China as a counterexample -- I assume, to demonstrate that nominal output hasn't exactly resulted in "prosperity" -- would be relevant if the Chinese economy hadn't only recently experienced high growth, or if its stability weren't in question. And, finally, my use of the word "prosperous" might have been a bit of a value judgment but it's accurate and, furthermore, it seems to have tweaked thread participants who are left of center; which is amusing.

[kendoiwan]

Your value judgement seems purely subjective... by your measure Saudi Arabi and all of the oil producing nations of the world for that matter should be top of that heap...

[ptGatsby]

The three largest world economies are, and have been for some time, America's, Japan's and Germany's.


I'd still like a metric, if you have one.

[htb]

I can't see why, Kendoiwan. Nominally, only Saudi Arabia, Iran and the U.A.E. rank in the top fifty.

Edit: A metric, ptGatsby? Common knowledge.

[ptGatsby]

Edit: A metric, ptGatsby? Common knowledge.


Yes please, a metric if you don't mind. I don't believe in public opinion as a metric.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

Yes please, a metric if you don't mind. I don't believe in public opinion as a metric.

There you go. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal))

Not that GDP is meaningful. After basic necessities are fulfilled, additional wealth adds very little to happiness.

[ptGatsby]

Not that GDP is meaningful. After basic necessities are fulfilled, additional wealth adds very little to happiness.


Thank you!

[Ka.avik]

Homeland Security was created and since then a record number of illegals have permeated our nation. It is as if the backdoor was left open upon its inception.
hadn't heard that. Doesn't suprise me; the department was just created to reduce civil liberties, not increase actual security :P

Wi> Big Pharma and Oil own our asses for the
Wi> remainder of this administration.

Probably for the remainder of the empire. After all, there's more money in offering symptom treatments in small doses; haven't you ever seen Johnny Pnuemonic ?


How will other countries try to hurt America? By punching it in the dollar. [....]
It has only been 36 years since the creation of the fiat currency known as the Federal Reserve Note or U.S. Dollar.

Thank goodness China and Japan dont like each other

Again, reading a fascinating book "empire of debt" it talks about the major pitfall of the American Empire -- whereas all preceeding empires have demanded tribute from vassal states. Us? The U.S.A. is borrowing from them.

Oh well. We lost the whole representative - governance thing a long time ago. Right now I'm toying with the idea that our current path was set when the civil war was over -- and a federal government established it would go to any lengths to prevent ("vassal") states from participating according to dictates.

[kendoiwan]

I can't see why, Kendoiwan. Nominally, only Saudi Arabia, Iran and the U.A.E. rank in the top fifty.

Edit: A metric, ptGatsby? Common knowledge.


This is why we ask for a metric... Based on GDP they all rank top 30... what are you basing this opinion on?

[ptGatsby]

This is why we ask for a metric... Based on GDP they all rank top 30... what are you basing this opinion on?


I'd also be curious why if he is basing his view on GDP, GDP/Capita is not a sign of 'prosperity'... though I don't think GDP is much of a measure of anything beyond what it actually measures. Its certainly not a picture of an economy, least as far as QOL is concerned. The old grinding wood to sawdust or broken window thing.

I guess the main metric is that bigger is better, regardless of the equality or distribution of that 'biggness'. Japan is a good example of a high powered economy with much less economic tiering... *shrug*



Again, reading a fascinating book "empire of debt" it talks about the major pitfall of the American Empire -- whereas all preceeding empires have demanded tribute from vassal states. Us? The U.S.A. is borrowing from them.


To be fair, it amounts to the same thing. Yes, debt may seem bad, but its not much different than empires past. The US can only sell debt as long as their vassals support them; just as the vassals only use to send money when they thought they had to.

Both will collapse roughly the same way. The US will stop paying their debt or be unable to raise it (ie: the vassals will stop sending money and rise up against them)... with much the same effects.

I still see it much the same. You want to be friends with an empire, you give them money. The actual semantics change - tribute, resources, plunder, taxes, debt... but because all empires require continual expansion to support their spending habits, it always tends to follow the same cycle.