Define: | OlyBlog

Navigation

User login

Online users

emmettoconnell
The Original Yoda
rolandovich
Logarithm
Berd
Guglielmo
FRESH
Rick
Anamaria

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

Sara Ballard
GooseKaler
LongRider
non illegitimi ...
acreatureapart

Define:

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 9:21am.

Princeton WordNet: Imperialism: A policy of extending your rule over foreign countries

Princeton WordNet: Empire: The domain ruled by an emperor or empress; the region over which imperial dominion is exercised

Princeton WordNet: Emperor: The male ruler of an empire

It would seem that once you can prove the United States has a policy of "extending [our] rule over foreign countries," the other pieces to argue that empire does indeed exist simply fall into place.

Any foreign country entered, unless in a defensive conflict, is for the purpose of "extending rule." Now, that extension of power could be for defensive purposes, but in and of itself it is not a defensive action.

I've said it before: It's time to bring an isolationist back into office.

The Fire Inside's blog
Login or register to post comments

I think...

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 10:04am.

...that a realist would be fine with me ("realism" in the sense of having a reality-based view of the world and foreign policy).

This might come off wrong,

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 10:51am.

This might come off wrong, but does a "reality-based view" only try to impose the "good" onto other countries?

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

Did you hear...

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 11:06am.

..."To the Point" today? (Warren Olney's show.) It was the best debate I've heard yet on the issues. (The ex-CIA fellow is totally right on in my view.)

"extending rule"

Submitted by Phil Owen on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 11:48am.

I think to extend rule is quite different than to maintain dominance. Iraq, I think, sets a good example of the difference. We invaded to eliminate an unfriendly ruler, and to replace him with friendly rulers (we're not doing a very good job of it; Iran seems to be the only clear winner in Iraq).

The point is that, while we are occupying Iraq, we aren't ruling it and don't claim ownership of it. Ostensibly it is the Iraqi government that is ruling, with the military support of the U.S. government.

The problem with the "imperialism" label is that it throws off other people; they imagine a monarch overtaking, colonizing, and taxing territories at the point of a sword. This image mystifies the reality that we are attempting to unilaterally assert ourselves as the dominant world power, that we are trying to spread our political and economic philosophy (not our rule) through the barrel of a gun. Doing so makes us THE target of insurgents worldwide. This is a BAD idea. But it is a different kind of bad from imperialism, and confusing the two doesn't help our argument.

Neocon foreign policy is bad enough that we don't have to exaggerate or distort it. It would be more powerful to argue directly against it.

Uh...

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Wed, 09/06/2006 - 8:30pm.

Phil, we're simply disagreeing here - I'm not distorting the issue - I'm clarifying the issue. The imperialism is the U.S.' 'extension of rule over other countries' (the fact of our ownership is moot when the airpsace, the oil, the roads, the towns are disposed of as our military would have them disposed - ownership is not at issue, the question remains - who gets hired to do the cleaning up?)

That you do not wish this to be termed Imperial is clear - but have you have shown in any way that it is Not Imperial? None that makes any sense to me...

The problem with the term 'imperialism' is not that "some people" reject it - it's that YOU reject it. Why do you?

The policy is economic opportunism

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 9:15pm.

Whatever the price.

We have gun boat (mis)adventure capitalism. We have crazy miners with uranium tipped bullets and bombs saying, "give us the oil, or prepare to die."

The criminal misadventure in Iraq, the Bush Administration malfeasance, is none other than economic imperialism, a bald-faced lie - under the cloak of the provision of security.

(...when in fact we are less secure due to the invasion and occupation of Iraq than we were before it... but that's a whole 'nother essay.)

And to think that some of

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 9:09pm.

And to think that some of you were harping on me for calling the USA's actions in Iraq imperialistic!

I have been redeemed! By quite an unlikely person. How auspicious! We Roberts stick together, right TFI?

I love this blog.

I mean, am I right, or am I right?!?!?

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: