Global Empires

[tynan88]

It is 2 o'clock in the morning here at the moment, and I have been thinking. I would consider the current America a global empire, empires rise and fall what will happen to the American empire as it currently stands do you think?

The way I see it the American voting system is fatally flawed, as is with all forms of democracy, democracy gives the impression to citizens of a nation they they have the power to make change. I personally think that this is pie-in-the-sky and that realistically few individuals can make a difference.

Now this begs the question of what happens when everyone finds out this and becomes dissatisfied enough with the current system ? Do they protest? Probably, probably the government and establishment falls, and the creation of a new order is necessary.

What is the next step? After democracy where do you go? It is the most representative form of government that has been instituted recenty, and it must be asked...do people want to influence the government? OR Do people just want to know the truth? I tend towards the first option, however democracy is a situation where people expect the first but don't realise they get the latter, that is the fatal flaw in democracy.

So what are your thoughts? If you can be bothered reading this.

Tynan

[ShangriLaTroubl]

First off I really think u should get some sleep..lol

[amber]

Originally Posted by tynan88

What is the next step? After democracy where do you go? It is the most representative form of government that has been instituted recenty, and it must be asked...do people want to influence the government? OR Do people just want to know the truth? I tend towards the first option, however democracy is a situation where people expect the first but don't realise they get the latter, that is the fatal flaw in democracy.

So what are your thoughts? If you can be bothered reading this.

Tynan

I didn't understand this part. Do people want to influence the gov't OR know the truth? don't people want both? and i don't understand "expect the first but get the latter" Are you saying we expect to influence the gov't, but really we get the truth? I don't think we get either one. But maybe i didn't understand what you meant correctly?
Nice to know you're thinking about it, though.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by tynan88

It is 2 o'clock in the morning here at the moment, and I have been thinking. I would consider the current America a global empire, empires rise and fall what will happen to the American empire as it currently stands do you think?

The way I see it the American voting system is fatally flawed, as is with all forms of democracy, democracy gives the impression to citizens of a nation they they have the power to make change. I personally think that this is pie-in-the-sky and that realistically few individuals can make a difference.

Now this begs the question of what happens when everyone finds out this and becomes dissatisfied enough with the current system ? Do they protest? Probably, probably the government and establishment falls, and the creation of a new order is necessary.

What is the next step? After democracy where do you go? It is the most representative form of government that has been instituted recenty, and it must be asked...do people want to influence the government? OR Do people just want to know the truth? I tend towards the first option, however democracy is a situation where people expect the first but don't realise they get the latter, that is the fatal flaw in democracy.

So what are your thoughts? If you can be bothered reading this.

Tynan

First of all America is not a democracy, it is a republic, which in a nutshell means a representative form of govt. It is this way to assure the smaller states that they will not be over run by the larger states

I submit that with 50 million people voting in any country, there is going to be a margin of error To think that 100% accuracy (which would be great and is a worthy goal) is an obtainable goal at this level of participants is specious thinking and mathematically unsupportable. Thus, voting by 50 some million people must contain a margain of error. Sadly, America was so divided in 2000 that that less than 1% magain of error mattered. usually, it is not that way. Also, in 2000, everyone concentrated on Florida's results. But, I submit if recounts had occurred in other much closer states, the results of those state could have been altered (at least the numbers - possibly the outcome).

As for the way we vote, the only way to get more accurate results is electronically as paper counting is inherently flawed because a very very small percentage of people cannot properly mark a ballot and reading a dimpled chad is subjective and ridiculous (the voter could have mistakenly dimpled it, changed their minds, etc. ) So, the question is how can we safeguard electronic voting. I think the govt. is currently working on that. I also think the system worked well in the last election from a percentage standpoint. I know there were allegations of fraud and electronic glitches and other problems, but all of those combined were probably not enough to change the outcome of the election. I think these allegations should be investigated and any malfeasance prosecuted. But, I am concerned with your allegation that the way America votes is "fatally flawed." I just do not see it as such. Rather, I think the system statistically works very well for the reasons set forth above.

Also, please inform me how America is an empire. We do not govern any countries. Yes, we are in Afganistan, but the former regime gave a safe haven to the world's most feard terrorist. Yes, we are in Iraq (and worngly so IMO) - but all pointers suggest we are trying to release control of Iraq as soon as is possible. It could be argues that America uses its economic clout to get its way, but I am unsure that is 100% true in all cases and even if it is, the world depends of Amercian money and its economy - just as America greatly depends on the same from the world. So, I just get a little huffy when people use the word empire, esp. considering the traditional use of that word a la the Romans, the Greeks, the British, etc. America is not doing that. So, the use of that word is just historically and factually incorrect. I think people euphamize (sp.?) this becuase they hate America.

Finally, I know of no alternative that a govt. such as democracy, a republic, etc. Communism looks great on paper, but I think human beings cannot abide being equal in every way. I think we like rewards for our work, etc. So, what is the alternative to this. I do not know and I submit we never will.

Finally, I think it is often overlooked that America provides relief and aid to many countries in the world. I think that is a feather in our hat. Yet, the bashing continues.

I am sure this post will draw flames. So be it.

[amber]

I think America is an "empire" (perhaps a better, more accurate word could be found) to the extent that we still plunder other countries' resources and try to also globalize capitalism while we do so. We set up puppet gov'ts to have control over countries' resources. We export the idea of our "way of life" ie, rampant consumerism, so that there will always be someone to buy our crap and make our corporations richer...that's the nutshell version. Perhaps "Capitalist Imperialists?" "Earth Strippers"? "Wasteful Plunderers"?

[madformac]

America is a republic, as is Britain and many other so called "democratic" countries too. Yeah we can vote who to give the power to, but once they have it we have very little say on matters anyway..

But you have the odd country that does do things differently.. Now I myself have issues with the French, I can honestly say I've never met a nice Frenchman, although I'm sure there are many of them around. The country is lovely but the general attitude of the French to other countries and visitors is less than admirable.. However, if they don't like something then the government will know about it.. A few years back there was a stink about British food being imported and the French farmers got upset about lost trade.. So they blocked the roads and ports, beat up any drivers that tried to get through, burned the produce, vandalised the trucks and made such a fuss that the government backed down..

Every year French air traffic control strike at peak holiday season which makes the French unpopular with every other European nation (The Germans seem to like them for some reason and vice versa, I'm guessing it's because the French didn't really stand up to the Germans in WWII as they should have when they were invaded, but they have found some guts now because they stand up to their own government when they want to and always seem to get their own way).

So the French have a kind of democracy regardless of who runs the country..

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think it is often overlooked that America provides relief and aid to many countries in the world. I think that is a feather in our hat. Yet, the bashing continues.

I am sure this post will draw flames. So be it.

Yes America provides aid to many countries I agree and it's a great thing in some cases..

However it is in many cases blackmail. Thoses countries need the money, America lends it to them in aid and expects a return of some kind in the future, usually political.. If they just agreed to write off third world debt for instance then it would solve a lot of problems.. Many African countries cannot even afford to pay the interest rates the western banks are charging them and the debts and suffering of those places are spiralling out of control..

[madformac]

Originally Posted by amber

I think America is an "empire" (perhaps a better, more accurate word could be found) to the extent that we still plunder other countries' resources and try to also globalize capitalism while we do so. We set up puppet gov'ts to have control over countries' resources. We export the idea of our "way of life" ie, rampant consumerism, so that there will always be someone to buy our crap and make our corporations richer...that's the nutshell version. Perhaps "Capitalist Imperialists?" "Earth Strippers"? "Wasteful Plunderers"?

All sounds about right to me..

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by amber

I think America is an "empire" (perhaps a better, more accurate word could be found) to the extent that we still plunder other countries' resources and try to also globalize capitalism while we do so. We set up puppet gov'ts to have control over countries' resources. We export the idea of our "way of life" ie, rampant consumerism, so that there will always be someone to buy our crap and make our corporations richer...that's the nutshell version. Perhaps "Capitalist Imperialists?" "Earth Strippers"? "Wasteful Plunderers"?

And we make sure that poor countries are forever indebted to us by "helping" them put in infrastructure and such that really only benefits the rich. Check this out, it's rather chilling if true http://www.democracynow.org/article..../11/09/1526251

[amber]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

And we make sure that poor countries are forever indebted to us by "helping" them put in infrastructure and such that really only benefits the rich. Check this out, it's rather chilling if true http://www.democracynow.org/article..../11/09/1526251

Excellente, Suze! Thanks for posting! Right outta the horses mouth, eh?

"Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring -- to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government, and in fact we’ve been very successful. We’ve built the largest empire in the history of the world. It's been done over the last 50 years since World War II with very little military might, actually. It's only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that. "

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

I think America is an "empire" (perhaps a better, more accurate word could be found) to the extent that we still plunder other countries' resources and try to also globalize capitalism while we do so. We set up puppet gov'ts to have control over countries' resources. We export the idea of our "way of life" ie, rampant consumerism, so that there will always be someone to buy our crap and make our corporations richer...that's the nutshell version. Perhaps "Capitalist Imperialists?" "Earth Strippers"? "Wasteful Plunderers"?

While I agree we exert control in the world because we are the strongest enonomy on the world, what is the alternative? If America were suddenly to withdraw from the Global markets, withdraw from administering global aid, withdraw from participating in places like Afganistan, Somalia, etc. What would happen? Would anarchy take over? Who knows for sure - I certainly do not

While that is an illogical argument because there is no way to sep. the current global economy (which has existed in one form of another since America was founded and exploited and plundered by the Europeans ) - I submit it is true in its intent. The world needs America as much as she needs the world - and America's participation in global events is necessary.

I really think that if we all do not nuke ourselves out of religious rage (scary thought ) - the world will see one economy or a facsimilie thereof in the latter part of this century. I mean look at the EU - will Russia ever join that - how about China or, even, America. I just look at the advances and dependancy made in the last 20 years and think one global enconomy is the only path apparent.

As for consumerism, I submit the Japanese and most of the Europeans (at least after the fall of the USSR) fit that def. as well. Interestingly, China is becoming the largest consumer nation. So, I think most of the larger countries of the world are rabid consumers and to single America out is a tad bit unfair. Also, is consumerism a bad thing. Why is it wrong to want things? Other than pollution of the environment, which I submit will change for the better and drastically so, in the next 20 years (see hybrid cars) - I cannot attach anything other than a religious exception to being a rabid consumer

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by amber

Excellente, Suze! Thanks for posting! Right outta the horses mouth, eh?

"Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring -- to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government, and in fact we’ve been very successful. We’ve built the largest empire in the history of the world. It's been done over the last 50 years since World War II with very little military might, actually. It's only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that. "

Yup, it's such an insidious form of empire building that many are not aware of it. I was actually shocked myself at first.

For context this man was an "economist" for the World Bank. He worked for private firms and had a slew of genuine accountants/economists working for him. He would put together "deals" for countries over seas, wooing "clients" with money, women, and booze and these deals would benefit only the rich in that country. But the plan would be written to look like it benefits everyone. So people lower in the firm didn't suspect anything and thought they were doing legitimate work. Once the work was done, the country would be indebted to the American companies who did the work and would owe money and political favors, if we wanted them. This is why he (John Perkins) called himself an "economic hit man".

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by madformac

America is a republic, as is Britain and many other so called "democratic" countries too. Yeah we can vote who to give the power to, but once they have it we have very little say on matters anyway..

But you have the odd country that does do things differently.. Now I myself have issues with the French, I can honestly say I've never met a nice Frenchman, although I'm sure there are many of them around. The country is lovely but the general attitude of the French to other countries and visitors is less than admirable.. However, if they don't like something then the government will know about it.. A few years back there was a stink about British food being imported and the French farmers got upset about lost trade.. So they blocked the roads and ports, beat up any drivers that tried to get through, burned the produce, vandalised the trucks and made such a fuss that the government backed down..

Every year French air traffic control strike at peak holiday season which makes the French unpopular with every other European nation (The Germans seem to like them for some reason and vice versa, I'm guessing it's because the French didn't really stand up to the Germans in WWII as they should have when they were invaded, but they have found some guts now because they stand up to their own government when they want to and always seem to get their own way).

So the French have a kind of democracy regardless of who runs the country..




Yes America provides aid to many countries I agree and it's a great thing in some cases..

However it is in many cases blackmail. Thoses countries need the money, America lends it to them in aid and expects a return of some kind in the future, usually political.. If they just agreed to write off third world debt for instance then it would solve a lot of problems.. Many African countries cannot even afford to pay the interest rates the western banks are charging them and the debts and suffering of those places are spiralling out of control..

LOL - the French - I LOVED it when the public transportation workers went of strike because they did not like the new color of the stations

As for American aid - America gives, not loans, billions of dollars. We also loan money as well. And - when money is loaned it must be paid back. Should we forgive the debt in the third world - probably. Will we, who knows, but we have forgiven alot already a la four billion in Iraq and also

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLI...debtrelief.ap/

Interestingly, many other countries have debt they are not forgiving as well. So, while two wrongs may not make a right - America is not alone in that boat and I think America forgives alot more than most other countries.

Interestingly, I know of no one who personally gives to any degree of it hurting them in any significant way. Yet, they all expect America to do it and do it without reservation or strings attached. That, to me, is just an unrealistic goal. But, people will differ in their opinions.

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

While I agree we exert control in the world because we are the strongest enonomy on the world, what is the alternative? If America were suddenly to withdraw from the Global markets, withdraw from administering global aid, withdraw from participating in places like Afganistan, Somalia, etc. What would happen? Would anarchy take over? Who knows for sure - I certainly do not

While that is an illogical argument because there is no way to sep. the current global economy (which has existed in one form of another since America was founded and exploited and plundered by the Europeans ) - I submit it is true in its intent. The world needs America as much as she needs the world - and America's participation in global events is necessary.

I really think that if we all do not nuke ourselves out of religious rage (scary thought ) - the world will see one economy or a facsimilie thereof in the latter part of this century. I mean look at the EU - will Russia ever join that - how about China or, even, America. I just look at the advances and dependancy made in the last 20 years and think one global enconomy is the only path apparent.

As for consumerism, I submit the Japanese and most of the Europeans (at least after the fall of the USSR) fit that def. as well. Interestingly, China is becoming the largest consumer nation. So, I think most of the larger countries of the world are rabid consumers and to single America out is a tad bit unfair. Also, is consumerism a bad thing. Why is it wrong to want things? Other than pollution of the environment, which I submit will change for the better and drastically so, in the next 20 years (see hybrid cars) - I cannot attach anything other than a religious exception to being a rabid consumer

If that's how you feel about Consumerism, and you don't know why it's bad, especially at the wasteful level we do it at, then i don't really know what to say to you. Yes, other countries are huge consumers. so what? And in some cases, we had a big hand in that. And America is the most wasteful, consumptive, and polluting. yes, China is doing their part.
Again, if that's how you think about resources, and consuming, and wastefulness, and the necessity of it...i'm at a loss for words.
but i certainly thank goodness every day the whole world doesn't consume like we do, there'd be nothing left. And "global economy" doesn't have to mean global conspicous consumption.
Interesting to read your argument, though..

[amber]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Yup, it's such an insidious form of empire building that many are not aware of it. I was actually shocked myself at first.

For context this man was an "economist" for the World Bank. He worked for private firms and had a slew of genuine accountants/economists working for him. He would put together "deals" for countries over seas, wooing "clients" with money, women, and booze and these deals would benefit only the rich in that country. But the plan would be written to look like it benefits everyone. So people lower in the firm didn't suspect anything and thought they were doing legitimate work. Once the work was done, the country would be indebted to the American companies who did the work and would owe money and political favors, if we wanted them. This is why he (John Perkins) called himself an "economic hit man".

sweet. thanks again. My favorite illustration of a direct form of the insidiousness of American capitalism is...I watched a show about natives working for our country, cutting down the amazon (where they live), and talking about how they are saving up from the pittance we pay them, so they can buy TV's. TV's allow us to advertise to them. so they'll buy our crap. which we make by plundering their country...

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Lux

So the US causes or assists in inflicting political and economic strains and often desperation onto many regions, and then expects gratitude for when it gives back? If you steal from me, do you really expect a thank you if you return a portion? Oh how thoughtful, I'll just ignore the fact that you destroyed my livelihood in order to steal it from me originally, and will thankyou for your generosity in obliging to return some of it.

That is a gross generalization. The US has supplied aid, esp, disaster relief, countless times with no strings attached. Moreover, in the case of overthrowing a govt., of course there will be strings attached.

In any event, there is no winning argument here. People are going to see what they want. They are never going to see the other side's point of voew and accept it. It seemingly is either "America is a jerk who cannot do anything but want to control and it has never done one lick of good EVER" or "America is the best."

My line of thinking is that as the strongest economy in the world, America has a duty to poor nations. Needed aid should be given without reservation. Is America acheiving that goal? I think for the most part yes. Are there horrible things that happen. Yes.

Anyway food for thought - and the band will play on!!!!