American Bashing

[bennylaird]

This is a bit offsided but Americans out there this is my reply to benny laid. The cabbage patch fella. We only love you while we are playing.


Hey benny laid,
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
You know why Tasmanians have two heads don’t you?
<o:p> </o:p>
It’s so we can have a decent conversation when we go to the mainland!!!
<o:p> </o:p>

My Mum was born in Hobart, lol so I have 1 and 1/2 heads anyway.

When AFL went down there they made a loss cos they sold only one family ticket..........Crowd was 8,000.

Next time they wised up and charged per head?

Aussie can make fun of themselves if there is a joke in it....

Speaking of jokes? The New Zealand cricket team springs to mind? and the Poms in Pakistan? Or heaven forbit that silly round ball game which is past a joke.......

[Bodgy]

I thought you didn't like using those things. :confused:

Cut & paste from MS office product gotchya.:D

Wasn't me, it was Mr Gates.

Funny thing I selected 'clear formatting' before posting and also hit the 'no format' button on the Forum editor.

Well spotted Cliff, like a dingo onto a dead roo. Life is a series of paradoxes.

[Driver]

Bodgy

I don't want to drag this on for too long but it's worth pointing out that this thread is entitled "American Bashing" and your first post - using the example of the Suez crisis - bashes away pretty hard. It implies that the US motives for applying pressure to the British and French sprang from Joseph Kennedy's well-known anti-British sentiments and a desire to dominate the world stage. Incidentally, Kennedy was a Democrat and Eisenhower a Republican. Did Kennedy really have that much influence with the President?

Your second post - a bit more measured, I reckon - acknowledges my point: that the Americans had a very real concern about the Hungarian invasion. They were able to take the moral high ground with the Soviets in the UN because they had actively pressurised Britain and France (and Israel) over the invasion of Egypt.

[Bodgy]

Whilst you and I find this interesting, I hesitate to go on much more, cause I'm sure most won't.

May I make just two points? Firstly, Eisenhower was not originally so stuck on compelling the PomFrogs to go home, it was the state department that was gung ho. This department, like most public service enclaves was a sort of old boys club. Kennedy Senior, who I think was once UK Ambassador had on-going influence at State. General high level power and influence was demonstrated by getting his boy JFK up over Tricky Dicky.

Secondly, I didn't think my first post was bashing the US too much. Suez is historical fact, very few nations act out of altruism, its not unique to the Seppo's. This event did mark the final end to the already moribund British Empire, and the beginning of the American Empire, finally consolidated at the death of European Communism.

Would anyone deny that we currently have an American Empire, possibly more cultural and economic rather than military? Did this happen by accident?

Sorry again for being boring.

[silentC]

Isn't this all just a part of The Great Game?

[Driver]

Isn't this all just a part of The Great Game?

Yes.

[Driver]

Whilst you and I find this interesting, I hesitate to go on much more, cause I'm sure most won't.

Don't underestimate the capacity of our members to be interested in bloody nearly anything ;)


Kennedy Senior, who I think was once UK Ambassador had on-going influence at State.

He was the US Ambassador in the UK during WWII - when FDR was President. FDR, like the Kennedys, was a Democrat.


General high level power and influence was demonstrated by getting his boy JFK up over Tricky Dicky.

What JFK's election may have demonstrated was his father's wealth.


Secondly, I didn't think my first post was bashing the US too much. Suez is historical fact, very few nations act out of altruism, its not unique to the Seppo's.

What I took issue with was what looked like an over-simplification, attributing America's position on Suez to Joe Kennedy and a desire for world domination.


This event did mark the final end to the already moribund British Empire, and the beginning of the American Empire, finally consolidated at the death of European Communism.

Would anyone deny that we currently have an American Empire, possibly more cultural and economic rather than military? Did this happen by accident?

Yes - I would. To talk about an American Empire implies that the US has absolute dominion over the nations in its thrall - in the same way that the Romans, the Portugese and the British had. The US has huge influence and can exercise enormous financial and political pressure but that's not quite the same thing as imperial domination.


Sorry again for being boring.

Mate, don't be mealy-mouthed. If you really thought you were being boring, you wouldn't post. ;)

[bitingmidge]

Ah yes, what thread on American Bashing would be complete without a bit of Kennedy Bashing.

I happened to be in Boston in '95, around the time of the great matriarch Rose Kennedy's 105th (and last) birthday.

When asked the predictable question about what she attributed to her long life, she replied:
" I smoke a small cigar every day, I have one small glass of red wine each evening, and I never let Teddy drive."

It must be true, I was there!

:D :D :D

P

[Bodgy]

Yes - I would. To talk about an American Empire implies that the US has absolute dominion over the nations in its thrall - in the same way that the Romans, the Portugese and the British had. The US has huge influence and can exercise enormous financial and political pressure but that's not quite the same thing as imperial domination.

Disagree Driver.

Its the modern day equivalent of those other Empires. With Nuclear weapons, world military domination is no longer possible. If you look at these other Empires, trade and wealth creation was what it was all about. The Poms ruled the waves, because they are an Island sure, but also to protect the trade routes and their commerce. India was the jewel of Empire cause cheap goods like raw cotton came out, shipped to UK, elaborately transformed into clothes etc at the Mills, then shipped back to this huge market. All by the Hon Company who had a legal monopoly on all UK-India shipping.

Whats the most imortant development in last 30 yrs? IT and Comms? Have a look at the software companies, the processor companies, the computer manufacturers. See anything in common? Yep, Global US businesses.
Its same old same old.

Driver, I think this is fascinating stuff, but the boring apology was for people who don't. Theres only about 6 of us on this 'politics' thread, but far higher numbers of viewers.

[Greg Ward]

Now there's seven.

The US has around 50% of the global military spend.
The Atomic weapons point is valid, even thoughtful, however their spend is fairly impressive.

The US is like the giant in the old fairy stories, not much delicacy about their activites, they walk around in big boots, but I sure wouldn't like to get stomped by them.
I find it amusing to watch the antics of the naive, who want to play in the modern Great games, but don't like it when the US doesn't play fair or locks them away in Cuba. I guess that's why we invented lawyers.

And speaking about thrall, two names spring to mind not mentioned as yet: Alexander and Ghingis Khan. Both used pretyy effective tactics and held sway economically, until they were gobbled by by time.
Unfortunately, we won't be around to watch much into this century

Now please make the point for Portugal, and compare and contrast their dominion to that of Spain.
Regards
Greg

[Bodgy]

A 7th, any takers for 8?

Can't contribute much on Portugal, British history is my area of interest.

Can say that in the 'rush for Africa' whilst the Portugese were a minor player, they apparently were amongst the most brutal. Not the most, that accolade goes to Belgium over Germany, by a long head.

What was there? Mozambique, Portugese West Africa, the Latin American countries, did they have a bit of the Sahara?

I need to google it.

[Greg Ward]

While we're at it, we may as well mention Ghengis Khan and Alexander both who had a little thrall over their rather large expanses of domain.
They suceeded both militarily and economically.
I must admit Ghenghis and his sons were a little tough on those who opposed him, but there were no media cameras (or lawyers) around at the time, although it probably wouldn't have worried him much in any event.
Both provided a general peace for those inhabitants who were lucky enough to remain alive in the areas they controlled.
Both dominions were swallowed by by time and bring this back to the topic, I guess we won't be around to see what happens to the US in the next 5oo years, But I bet they still manage some little part of Cuba.

But I still struggle with Portugal, yes, I've been to Rio, and I accept that Brazil is the world's 4th largest country....but really was there much to begin with or to conquer? Darius was more of a hurdle I think, as was China inside their wall
Regards
Greg

[Driver]

India was the jewel of Empire cause cheap goods like raw cotton came out, shipped to UK, elaborately transformed into clothes etc at the Mills, then shipped back to this huge market. All by the Hon Company who had a legal monopoly on all UK-India shipping.

Whats the most imortant development in last 30 yrs? IT and Comms? Have a look at the software companies, the processor companies, the computer manufacturers. See anything in common? Yep, Global US businesses.
Its same old same old.


It's not.

John Company was quite literally the British government in disguise. It had its own armies, intelligence service, judiciary and all the other trappings of government. The government in the UK recruited the best and brightest people to work for the East India Company. It was so important to them that - even in that bastion of nepotism and privilege - you couldn't get a post with John Company unless you were seriously talented. Money, position and your family name were not enough.

Now, for all Bill Gates' commercial muscle, no-one has yet accused him of putting together an army and a judicial system.

Santayana said those who ignore the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them.

A corollary to this piece of wisdom is that those who misunderstand the lessons of history are in danger of drawing inaccurate conclusions. Neither the Romans nor the British felt much constrained in their exercise of imperial power. That is not true of the US. They have the constraints of their own constitution, the requirement to meet the demands of their own democratic system and the overseeing eye of world opinion - certainly among free nations.

It's a colourful argument to compare US power and influence in the 21st century with the imperial power of the British and Roman Empires but it's simplistic and inaccurate. By simplifying the argument in this way, you run the risk of misunderstanding the potential real influences. History provides pointers and indicators but it doesn't paint pictures of the future.

[Bodgy]

Driver

a number of your assertions are patently incorrect. Lets examine them.

1. The British East India Company. These guys were well down the list. The truly priviledged (rich) and talented went into the proper army or navy. The also rans went into John company. John company transmogrified into the Indian army, who continued the tardition of the 'second drawer' John Company had a number of disputes with the British establishment probably leading to the segue into the Indian Army.

Quote..Neither the Romans nor the British felt much constrained in their exercise of imperial power. That is not true of the US. They have the constraints of their own constitution, the requirement to meet the demands of their own democratic system and the overseeing eye of world opinion - certainly among free nations.

You gotta be kidding! Or are you just winding me up? Cuba (exploding cigars), Guatemala, Latin America in general, in partic the Contra's, go back further United Fruit, Segregation, ML King, JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Iraq, Panama, Gaddafi's Mrs, the Big MAC and on and on.

but it's simplistic and inaccurate

Have I offended you in some way? Honest, she said she was 18.

Quote
By simplifying the argument in this way, you run the risk of misunderstanding the potential real influences.

Ok, Please explain the real influences. Bated breath for the Portugese heavies.

Quote
Santayana said those who ignore the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them.

A corollary to this piece of wisdom is that those who misunderstand the lessons of history are in danger of drawing inaccurate conclusions.

You are winding me up ! And I fell for it.

OK, I'll play too. What has some loony monk from Florence in the 15th century got to say about mistakes and history, even tho he was condemned.

Gee this is fun!

[craigb]

I was under the impression that there wasn't a "British" army in India until after the Indian Mutiny.

Before that, as Driver says, the joint was run by the British East India Company and it's army.

[Driver]

Bodgy

I'm at a loss to know where to start!

But I'll have a go. We'll start at the end. I don't understand your reference to a 15th century Florentine monk. If this is intended to be a response to my quote from Santayana, then I should point out that I am referring to George Santayana. He was a 19th century philosopher - born in Spain and brought up in the US. The quote about those who ignore the mistakes of history etc is actually quite well known.

The Portugese certainly had an empire. It was mainly based on their extensive naval explorations during the 14th and 15th centuries. Evidence of their influence is still visible in (for example) Oman and India. They only recently relinquished their ownership of Macao and they had plenty of contact with the Japanese.

Where do you get the idea that the people who were recruited into the East India Company were second-raters? Or that the better talent went into the army and navy? The overwhelming weight of the opinions I've read on the subject leaves no doubt about the outstanding quality of the Indian Civil Service which is what John Company actually became. The Indian Army in the 1920s and 1930s wasn't real good but that was mainly a consequence of the enormous losses of good officers in WWI. Before that it was a very efficient fighting force. And, actually, during WWII - particularly in Burma - elements of the old Indian Army did a helluva good job.

The only comment I'll make about your diatribe on the US and its various adventures is this: you have been making a case that the US is currently an imperial power similar to the old manifestations of empire. Your examples of their failings during the 60s, 70s and 80s have no relevance to that. Except - perhaps - for this: they have demonstrated that, as a nation, they can change. Black Americans are treated far better now than they were during the period before and just after Martin Luther King's assassination. The change has come about through democratic pressure - people power, if you like. Can you imagine that happening in 19th century Britain?

Finally, you're obviously a bit upset. That's a pity. I didn't intend to disturb your equilibrium.

[Greg Ward]

If you think Portugal was important, don't forget the Dutch, or the Prussians, or the French with or without Napolean, yes and I'll accept Belgium, sort of.

But I'm still in awe at the achievments and the history of China.
........It's great to be an anglophile, and a USphile, I'm one and have a great admiration for the still upper lip of the British beaurocracy that held the British Army and navy together in their global forays, the concept of nobless oblige, and the raw enthusiasm of the US entrepreneurs.

But you've got admire the Chinese, who frequently (and still) keep their fighting and beating up of neighbours within the family.
Kublai Khan was seduced and I'm wondering if the same stratgy will enable them to take over the world through seduction. It's working at the moment, or at least with the buyers from our major retail chains.
Greg

[bitingmidge]

But I'm still in awe at the achievments and the history of China.
But you've got admire the Chinese, who frequently (and still) keep their fighting and beating up of neighbours within the family.
Kublai Khan was seduced and I'm wondering if the same stratgy will enable them to take over the world through seduction.

"In the family" in the same sense that it's ok for us to flog Kiwis!!

Actually what about the Mongol Hordes?? Ghengis (Chinggis) Kahn is Mongolia's man of the Millenium, and rightly so too!!

cheers,
P:D

[Greg Ward]

Don't mention the rugby codes, I'm not sure who is flogging whom.

But the Chinese appear to love nothing better than some internecine in-house mutilation and mayhem. We gave them some alternative targets during the Boxer rebellion and the Japanese were a mite problematic during the 1930-40s, but after they kicked the warlords out in 1949, they again went on to repeat the old leadership favourite task of keeping the population in check through government promoted revolution.

Ghengis could be my man of the millennium also. His minions did a good job around the middle east, even getting the Pope of the time to think he may have relation to Prester John and seek him as an allie. But as they say, the first generation makes it, the second consolidates, and the third wastes it. This was certainly true of Ghengis.

Back to the US, I'm not sure which generation the US is up to at this point of time, and I don't think even they know what they are wasting.

Their global actions remind me of the difference between a prissy anal retentive wood worker who never makes a mistake, and using the minimum of wood, creates a prefect article, and a hyperactive woodworker, who makes many mistakes, uses up a lot of resources but gets the job done in the end.
The prissy laywer type is great for the environment, but I know with whom I'd rather have a drink.
Regards
Greg

[silentC]

Didn't the East India Company play a part in America eventually seeking independence?

[Bodgy]

Wow! This is approaching the stoush over the old Dutch architect and his chairs. I also find difficulty in where to begin. This discussion has ranged far and wide, and if each individual point (on all sides) were examined, then it would be full time employment.

I've got to be brief today, as am approaching some deadlines at work.

1. Craig, I'm also under that impression. Some of the texts I wrote were post dinner and some red wine. Apologies if muddled.

2. Driver, my attempt at obtuse humour. George Santayana/Savonorola sound similar. Also considered Santianna (spelling?) but given he got Bowie thought it more US bashing.

3. We'll have to disagree. John Company was first and foremost a commercial enterprise. Their ships etc were first class and army may well have been efficient. At that time, and it still lingers, the Poms looked down on 'trade' and the establishment did not encourage sons etc to take up commercial positions.

Unlike yourself, my reading says that the Indian force, this is around the time Wellington got his first big win, did not attract the best candidates. You may well be correct in terms of their efficacy tho. Wellington had to be quite harsh to get his boys up to scratch.

4. Diatribe? hardly. Not that emotive.
I continue to beleive that the US is currently the worlds foremost colonial power. The nature of the exercise of the power has changed, that's all. The dosh still rolls in, just like all the other colonialists. They're better than some, worse than others.

As far as change occuring in the British Empire, of course it did. If you consider the BE in the context of its time and mores, change occured quite rapidly. If you had to be colonised, the Poms were probably the best of the bunch. Look at India, for example. They left behind an educated and trained civil service - the best young Indian men would be recruited and trained in England, a railway network, a pluralistic democracy, a justice system, the end of the Thugees and more. Gandhi, apart from a short imprisonment, was not executed or persecuted, in fact he was a lawyer trained in the UK to illustrate a previous point. Not too many colonial masters behave thus toward such a revolutionary.

19th century Britain changed radically thru the influence of people power. Industrial laws in particular. I'd like to list the changes in that century, it would probably get axed for taking up too much storage.

Finally, I'm not upset. I thought I detected some nay-saying for the sake of it and I was getting played.

I'll leave comment on the other Empires to others, know bugger all about it.

[Bodgy]

Didn't the East India Company play a part in America eventually seeking independence?

Not sure, would need to research. There may be a link which ties in with previous posts in that John Company monopolised the Indian shipping trade. There were ongoing stoushes between the Poms and Seppos, even before independence as their navy and commercial fleets grew (they built great ships and their seamen were as skilled as the Poms - often were ex Poms). This caused lots of friction, and led to the 'Canadian' war of 1812-15.

It wouldn't be a huge logical leap to think that the US wanted a bit of the Indian trade and were so denied by the POms, late 1700's fits too.

The famous Boston tea may have come from India (maybe China) so there was commerce and eventually Starbucks!

[Different]

when they kept their dollar and gold prices artificially low for decades so they could buy up overseas competitors after the war years, or their alledged culteral imperialism with their cheap export of their Hollywood junk, or their military imperialism and involving us in them, their massive cheap exports and their corresponding closed markets keeping the trade deficits most countries face too high and their export of their hamburgers which ruined the Aussie hamburger are IMO fair things to criticise.

Peter.

Interesting view but the above list of actions seem to me to be those that our government has an obligation to make a reality in this country.
America does what it does economically for the same reason a dog licks his testicles, coz he can and so would most others if they could.

Ross

[Different]

That and the other main power will be a united Europe (including Russia) and the USA will become a bit player on the world's stage. Where that will leave us with our reliance on the USA is a great worry.

The future indeed will be a combination of what was described in " 1984 " and " A brave new world ".


Peter.

Aah The taste of Soylent Green!!!

Ross

[Different]

90% of US citizens do not have a passport.
Neither do I!
What is your point?
Please dont tell me that visiting fountains in Rome and buying overpriced coffee in Paris makes you a more rounded world citizen!

Ross

[Different]

I'm wading in here real late on this topic bit thought I'd have a poke in here before I hit the sack.

I have to fully agree with Surdee on the above and that is a big gripe for me about Americans, but there are good blokes on both sides. And don't give me the wooha that they're the saviour for the whole world or that Bush or any president is the leader of the free world, then you really get me going.

And the baseball World Series, I thought it's only teams in America playing, don't remember seeing China or Greenland playing, so what gives? Or is that part of the "we are the world" thing?

And Wongo, what's wrong with Queenslanders mate? :D


I've made some posts in the past which I've apologised to the bloke I directed it to. But at the end of the day let's all have fun in our shed stuffing up perfectly good bits of wood and help each other out make the stuff ups a bit better, and along the way we can share our Aussie humour beyond the shores of this great brown land.

Mate, I love this country! And let's ditch the national anthem for what I think it should be instead, "Great Southern Land" by Icehouse. :)

or Sounds of Then by Gang Gajang sp
I can hear the lightning crack over cane fields from here!!!

Ross

[Cliff Rogers]

....
Please dont tell me that visiting fountains in Rome and buying overpriced coffee in Paris makes you a more rounded world citizen!.....

It may not BUT... taveling to another country can give you another perspective.:)

It may not make you any wiser but it does give you more to talk about. ;)

[Different]

It may not BUT... taveling to another country can give you another perspective.:)

It may not make you any wiser but it does give you more to talk about. ;)
So can introspection, meditation and education.
I think I will stick with the "Worlds in a small room" concept and leave the mothballed stench of Europe for the owners of passports. Anyhow they probably wouldnt issue one to a redneck like me !!!

Ross

[Lignum]

And the baseball World Series, I thought it's only teams in America playing, don't remember seeing China or Greenland playing, so what gives? Or is that part of the "we are the world" thing?

:)

The initial baseball world series was a tournament sponsered by a newspaper called "The News of the world " (or something like it) and it stayed that way;)

[ryanarcher]

90% of US citizens do not have a passport.Neither do I!
What is your point?
Please dont tell me that visiting fountains in Rome and buying overpriced coffee in Paris makes you a more rounded world citizen!

Ross

and it's not true either.:rolleyes:

[bitingmidge]

It may not BUT... taveling to another country can give you another perspective.:)

It may not make you any wiser but it does give you more to talk about. ;)
Or in my case... give them more to talk about.

P
:D :D :D

[silentC]

The famous Boston tea may have come from India
The Boston tea was tea from China belonging to the British East India Company. They were struggling because John Hancock and his mates were boycotting tea from China.

So Britain passed the Tea Act which allowed the BEIC to sell their tea to the colonies without the colony tax, making it cheaper than anyone else could sell it for. The Americans got quite upset about it and turned the ships away from their ports, all except Boston which had a British-appointed governor.

As a result of the Boston Tea Party, Britain put the screws on the yanks (the Intolerable Acts) and so they rebelled and fought for independence.

See, it's all the fault of the British East India Company ;)

[Bodgy]

Silent, that makes things clearer and underlines your point. It also adds weight to mine, that the point of Empire is $$. The Poms were coining it, as is the US currently. No moral judgement implied. Like someone said, if you can-you will.

Different, that hackneyed old saw 'travel broadens the mind' seems to apply. You get overpriced coffee everywhere. Europe is surprisingly modern, albeit housed in age old, stately architecture. The culture is vibrant and alive. Go back only a few centuries and this was where it all happened, America was populated by Europeans, as was Oz. To quote my rambunctious interlocuter Driver's quote, 'He who fails to learn from history etc etc.' Europe is the root of our history. Don't want to stand at Runnymede on the spot King John signed the Magna Carta? No interest in the land of Shakespeare, Standing next to the church door where Luther nailed his protest, Napoleon's tomb? Abba's local pub? etc etc.

Buy a ticket, then come back and say your horizons haven't broadened.

Ryan - Good on you for staying with this. I hope its an interesting discussion, not just US bashing.

Re the 90% no passports statement. If this is wrong, I'd like to know. I've certainly read it, and its seems accepted. Doesn't mean its true tho. I have always found the US populace pretty self absorbed and with little knowledge of the wider world. Certainly there is next to no coverage of world affairs in your popular papers. I'm sure this was the case for the mass of Romans, Greeks, Poms etc at their height of Empire. The 90% figure seems beleivable and explains this. If its wrong, what is the figure?

Again, no offence to you intended. In fact you're excluded. You could probably write a book about Oz and the curious antics of its inhabitants.

[ryanarcher]

Re the 90% no passports statement. If this is wrong, I'd like to know. I've certainly read it, and its seems accepted. Doesn't mean its true tho. I have always found the US populace pretty self absorbed and with little knowledge of the wider world. Certainly there is next to no coverage of world affairs in your popular papers. I'm sure this was the case for the mass of Romans, Greeks, Poms etc at their height of Empire. The 90% figure seems beleivable and explains this. If its wrong, what is the figure?




no offence taken:) 75% per the department of state.

[silentC]

75%? Well, there's hope for them yet!

Speaking of history and travel, you haven't lived until you've done the Hound of the Baskervilles tour at Dartmoor!!

[Iain]

Another thing the British did in India was to portray Britain on a full (double)page of an atlas whereas India was shown as part of a continent on a page, thereby giving the local population that Britain was indeed a large formidable country not to be challenged.

[Bodgy]

Another thing the British did in India was to portray Britain on a full (double)page of an atlas whereas India was shown as part of a continent on a page, thereby giving the local population that Britain was indeed a large formidable country not to be challenged.

Great idea. A lot better than slaughtering a few thousand to make the point - as did Sadam, Gengis, Attila, Stalin, Mao et. On reflection, cheaper too.

Proves my point, humanitarian and thrifty colonists. Pax Brittania!

[Iain]

Just as an aside, one of my all time favourite movies is 'The mouse that roared':D :D :D
Was Mr Sellers US bashing:rolleyes:

[silentC]

This is from Wikipedia on the subject of American Imperialism. Note it doesn't make a call one way or the other, as it is intended to have a neutral point of view:


There is a contemporary debate surrounding the United States and whether or not the power it exerts upon much of the world and its policy amounts to imperialism — hence sometimes the U.S. is referred to as the "American Empire."

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the United States is now the dominant power in the world. That argument seems difficult to refute, as the U.S. has many times over the past century used both military intervention and economic or political influence to shape the countries within its domain in the Western Hemisphere. Though opinions vary greatly between hawkish and dovish political powers in the U.S., the more hawkish may regard imperialist-style expansionism as simply part of the nation's "responsibility," "interest" or "Manifest Destiny."

The term is naturally controversial — the term "empire" is largely limited to descriptions of history (rather than contemporary events) and likewise the historical examples of empire tend to be more familiar and evocative of the concept. As such, modern examples of coercion and militarism may be viewed differently.

The United States has also only had very few years of status as "sole superpower," without the Soviet Union to be its dominant political, military, and ideological foe. The Cold War battle for geopolitical supremacy tends to be cast in terms of 'freedom versus repression,' thereby diminishing the imperial aspects of both powers. Further, as "imperialism" tends to have negative connotations of tyranny and repression, such a claimed empire's "subjects" may be naturally disinclined to use it in any reference to themselves.

In the early 21st Century, the U.S. has turned its military, political, and economic ambitions towards oil-rich countries in Central Asia and the Middle East. Beginning with the end of World War II, the U.S. largely took over from the UK certain roles by which it controlled the Middle East. Through United States-instigated and assisted assasinations and coups, several Middle Eastern nations have felt the strong influence of Western societies: Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel have been directly or otherwise substantially influenced by U.S. policy. (This does not include prior or continuing British Empire holdings of the time — notably in India and Pakistan.)

As there are few other countries with such a capability, it has been said by some that U.S. military actions are partly or mostly acts of militarist imperialism. Others simply believe that such allegations are used as groundless criticism against the U.S. whenever it takes a military action. Two uncontroversial facts are that the U.S. currently has a much larger and more sophisticated military than any other country — operating over 100 bases in every part of the world. The U.S. has also used its military to control its interests. It is debatable whether these things alone constitute imperialism, or whether such "imperialism" adequately resembles past incarnations — Roman, British, German or otherwise.

Some critics of the Marshall Plan (Aid to Western Europe after WWII) reckoned it was American Imperialism.

[Driver]

Quote:

The U.S. has also used its military to control its interests. It is debatable whether these things alone constitute imperialism, or whether such "imperialism" adequately resembles past incarnations — Roman, British, German or otherwise.

And that, of course, is what we have been debating.

[Driver]

To quote my rambunctious interlocuter Driver's quote, 'He who fails to learn from history etc etc.'



Er ... Bodgy: At the risk of repeating myself: that was Santayana. George Santayana. :rolleyes: Not Savanorola, not General Santa Anna and definitely not me.

[bitingmidge]

and George's brother Carlos Santana said:

The most valuable possession you can own is an open heart. The most powerful weapon you can be is an instrument of peace.
Carlos Santana

But then, what would a musician know.

P
:D :D :D

[silentC]

I don't know anywhere near enough to contribute much to this debate. At a very simplistic level, I can see both sides of the argument. From what I can tell, a lot of it comes down to semantics. No-one disputes that the US has it's tentacles every where and that it uses them to control and influence other countries either covertly or openly. The only question really is whether you can define their behaviour as imperialistic and whether you could call it an empire. So I suppose you need to define and agree the definitions of those two words first.

Wikipedia says:


Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial conquest or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is often used to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire.

In it's etymology, the word 'empire' implies the existence of an Emporer. Britain never had one of those but I suppose a King or Queen would do. In that strict definition, the US cannot qualify.

Maybe what is needed are new terms so that comparisons with historical empires don't muddy the waters.

I'd like to suggest 'Super Sizing' and 'Big Macdom'.

[Bodgy]

Er ... Bodgy: At the risk of repeating myself: that was Santaya. George Santayana. :rolleyes: Not Savanorola, not General Santa Anna and definitely not me.

I'm quoting you, quoting a quote. It's maybe a quote to the power of 3, but still a quote. I'm good at obfuscation.

Probably not original anyway, George probably overheard heard it in the local cantina after too much Sangriya.

Incidentally, sorry for your loss. Been in same situation more times than seems fair. Never learn't how to cope.

[Bodgy]

Silent

Looking at your last definition from Wikipedia, if you exempt the last sentence about colonies, I think you have exactly defined the current United States.

How about:

'Emperor Dubya' - Defender of the Incorporated, Protector of the Evangelist.

Incidentally one of Queen Victoria's many titles was 'Empress of India'

[Daddles]

Incidentally one of Queen Victoria's many titles was 'Empress of India'

Oi, don't pick on Queen Vic. Any monarch played by Judi Dench ('Her Majesty Mrs Brown') has to be a goodun :D

Richard

(that's about as constructive as I can be in this debate. Pathetic isn't it :rolleyes: )

[Harry72]

Heres my opinion... 99.99% of this thread is way over my head!

And thats how I like it... the reason TV news does not interest me, a ignorant life is less stressful.

I only have 2 things against the ol'USA
1. Utes are not minitrucks!
2. Real hamburgers have beetroot!

[bitingmidge]

I'm loving it, keep it going chaps.


I only have 2 things against the ol'USA
1. Utes are not minitrucks!
2. Real hamburgers have beetroot!
3. Caravans are not Trailers
4.Campervans are not RV's


P
:D

[bennylaird]

5. We are Aussies not OSSSSieeeessss.

[silentC]

6. The Governor of California is not from Australia.

[Bodgy]

7. Tea and coffe usually has milk added not cream
8. The rest of the world does not speak 'good American'
9. I'll have what sort of day I please
10. Outdoor air conditioning
11. Tipping - regardless of quality of product or service
12. A trunk is the thing that holds a tree up, not a boot
13. Z is ZED not ZEE, and does not replace the letter S

[bitingmidge]

14. A bonnet is not a Hood
15. Missing you already!

[bennylaird]

16. Everyone is called Mate, not buddy.

[silentC]

17. Putting peanut butter and jelly together on the same sandwich is bizarre

[bennylaird]

18. Vegemite is great Mate.

[Iain]

19. Where the hell is Briz-Bane
20. Ditto Mell Born
21. Em Moos are not a flightless bird, don't know what they are.

[bennylaird]

22. You wouldn't think Koalas were like teddy bears if you tried to hold one.

[Iain]

23. Bugs Bunny got this one wrong

[silentC]

24. "Prolly" is not a word.

[Lignum]

we eat scones not scowns
and its ok to actualy put the mobile phone up to you ear, you wont get anymore brain damage.

[silentC]

Oh, now you've really gone too far, Lignum.

;)

[Lignum]

Oh, now you've really gone too far, Lignum.

;) :eek:... Ok i retract my comments regarding Scownes:)

[bennylaird]

It's not just the Americans that have problems.

Ever tired to buy some scallops in a NSW Fish and Chip shop? Mongrels gave me potatoe cakes!!!!!!!!!

[silentC]

Not here mate, but if you ask for Potato scallops, that's what you'll get. But then we do have an alarming number of Victorians round here....

[bitingmidge]

27. There's no such thing as negative growth.

[bennylaird]

Ahhhh for the old days when you could buy the jars of marinated scallops.....
Salivating here.......


25. We don't throw shrimps on the Barbie. Maybee a prawn or two but give me Yabbies anyday. (Or maybe a Cray? What the hell is a Lobster????)

[bitingmidge]

Ever tired to buy some scallops in a NSW Fish and Chip shop? Mongrels gave me potatoe cakes!!!!!!!!!

IF you want sea scallops, it's best to ask for them. Potato Scallops are better tasting and better for you though, because they hold a lot more fat.

29. Fat is good.

P (Keep count benny!)

:D

[Iain]

Crayfish is a Southern Rock LObster, in Europe (OK UK) they have Crawfish/Lobster which have a smoother carapice and two bloody great blood letting claws.

[bennylaird]

Last Number + 1

Tassie Scallops, some corriander, sweet chilli sauce etc thrown into a wok with a handful of hot chillis. No fat to worry about, I've lost 16kg in 10 weeks cos I was eating fatty potatoe cakes(scallops?) etc. Lose a mate to heart attack and you tend to eat better.

[craigb]

30. A ute is not a pickup

[Lignum]

Hamburger in Batter ... ;) Mmmm

[craigb]

31. You do the MATHS

[Iain]

Gas is gas, petrol is petrol
Cookies are on a PC
Tyres not tires
Cheques not checks
G'day not hi y'all
Scrubbers are not for cleaning:rolleyes:

[bitingmidge]

31. You do the MATHS
Surely you mean MATH??


:D

[bitingmidge]

A pickup is a girl who'll get into your ute.

[silentC]

39. Australians love THE bush

[bitingmidge]

40. Rubbers are for fixing mistakes, not preventing them.

:rolleyes:

[Termite]

Fourex XXXX is a beer not a condom..........well it's sort of like beer. :D

[Bodgy]

Scrubbers are not for cleaning:rolleyes:

But popular, none the less.

[scooter]

or Sounds of Then by Gang Gajang sp
I can hear the lightning crack over cane fields from here!!!

Ross

Agree with the 2 suggestions so far, not quite "national anthem" material to be honest, but another Oz song I love is "I was only 19" - Redgum.


Cheers.................Sean

[Lignum]

another Oz song I love is "I was only 19" - Redgum.


Cheers.................Sean

Better still was the "Harri rap" on Red Faces years ago based on those lyrics and melody... Aparently Daryl Summers got death threats from the Broady Boys if he didnt appologise:D

[Bodgy]

The real national anthem is Waltzing Matilda.

Has been for over 50 years and is still the song that immediately, instantly is recognisable as Oz. We all know the words too!

Like it or not its the de facto standard. What gets the crowd going at the Rugby? John Williamson, even with his 'challenged' singing abillity.

Has to beat that turgid dribble that has the official sanction.

[fxst]

but I believe the seppos have the copyrights to it:(
Pete

[craigb]

Aparently Daryl Summers got death threats from the Broady Boys if he didnt appologise:D

I guess he must have appologised then. Bugger :(

[echnidna]

but I believe the seppos have the copyrights to it:(
Pete

The copyright expires soon.
It was written by Banjo P

[craigb]

41. There is no such word as gotten

[Wongo]

This thread is closed.

[Bodgy]

But we haven't got to the Ming Dynasty empire yet!

[craigb]

This thread is closed.

No it's not :)

[bitingmidge]

Since this IS American Bashing, you'd be referring to Wongo's cousins in Wyo-ming I take it??

P
:D

[Wongo]

But we haven't got to the Ming Dynasty empire yet!


Such important topic should be discussed in another thread like “Which biscuit joiner to buy??”

[Lignum]

I guess he must have appologised then. Bugger :(

Craig:) He came back the following saturday night and solomly told the story and as every one was waiting for the big appology, he introduced them and they sang it again. A classic song often replayed on the best of red faces:D

[Wongo]

Since this IS American Bashing, you'd be referring to Wongo's cousins in Wyo-ming I take it??

P
:D

You min Yeo Ming?

[Wongo]

That dude is 7 foot 6 and he got game.:cool:

[Cliff Rogers]

It is a GLOVEBOX, not a glove compartment....
but who keeps gloves in it anyway? :D

[Waldo]

G'day Cliff,

The old dears who drive their Volvos on a Sunday. Sure hope none of you lot fall into that category. :D

[Bob Willson]

Revocation of US Independence

John Cleese on handover of power to the Queen of the USA; Revocation of the Independence of USA.

Imagine John Cleese reading this out to an audience in America (which he did recently):

To the citizens of the United States of America, in the light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories, except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new Prime Minister (The Right Honourable Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a Minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1) You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up "aluminium." Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour'; skipping the letter 'U' is nothing more than laziness on your part. Likewise, you will learn to spell ‘doughnut' without skipping half the letters. You will end your love affair with the letter 'Z' pronounced 'zed' not 'zee') and the suffix "ize" will be replaced by the suffix "ise." You will learn that the suffix 'burgh' is pronounced 'burra' e.g. Edinburgh. You are welcome to re-spell Pittsburgh as 'Pittsberg' if you can't cope with correct pronunciation. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up vocabulary." Using the same thirty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "uhh", "like", and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed." There will be no more 'bleeps' in the Jerry Springer show. If you're not old enough to cope with bad language then you shouldn't have chat shows. When you learn to develop your vocabulary, then you won't have to use bad language as often.

2) There is no such thing as "US English." We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of "-ize."

3) You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. English accents are not limited to cockney, upper-class twit or Mancunian (Daphne in Frasier). You will also have to learn how to understand regional accents --- Scottish dramas such as "Taggart" will no longer be broadcast with subtitles. While we're talking about regions, you must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in England. The name of the county is "Devon." If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become "shires" e.g. Texasshire, Floridashire, Louisianashire.

4) Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. Hollywood will be required to cast English actors to play English characters. British sit-coms such as "Men Behaving Badly" or "Red Dwarf" will not be re-cast and watered down for a wishy-washy American audience who can't cope with the humour of occasional political incorrectness.

5) You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through.

6) You should stop playing American "football." There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full Kevlar body armour like nancies. We are hoping to get together at least a US Rugby sevens side by 2005. You should stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the 'World Series' for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.15% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. Instead of baseball, you will be allowed to play a girls' game called "rounders," which is baseball without fancy team strip, oversized gloves, collector cards or hotdogs.

7) You will no longer be allowed to own or carry guns. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous in public than a vegetable peeler. Because we don't believe you are sensible enough to handle potentially dangerous items, you will require a permit if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

8) July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 2nd will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Day."

9) All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap, and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. All road intersections will be replaced with roundabouts. You will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

10) You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries' are not real chips. Fries aren't even French; they are Belgian though 97.85% of you (including the guy who discovered fries while in Europe) are not aware of a country called Belgium. Those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called "crisps." Real chips are thick cut and fried in animal fat. The traditional accompaniment to chips is beer which should be served warm and flat. Waitresses will be trained to be more aggressive with customers.

11) As a sign of penance 5 grams of sea salt per cup will be added to all tea made within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this quantity to be doubled for tea made within the city of Boston itself.

12) The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling "beer" is not actually beer at all, it is lager. From November 1st only proper British Bitter will be referred to as "beer," and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as "Lager." The substances formerly known as "American Beer" will henceforth be referred to as "Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine," with the exception of the product of the American Budweiser company whose product will be referred to as "Weak Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine." This will allow true Budweiser (as manufactured for the last 1000 years in the Czech Republic) to be sold without risk of confusion.

13) From November 10th the UK will harmonise petrol (or "gasoline," as you will be permitted to keep calling it until April 1st 2005) prices with the former USA. The UK will harmonise its prices to those of the former USA and the former USA will, in return, adopt UK petrol price (roughly $6/US gallon -- get used to it).

14) You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.

15) Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.

16) Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).

Thank you for your co-operation.

[Harry72]

Repost Bob!

[Bob Willson]

Yes Harry, it is a repost, but it just seemed to fit in so nicely and recent comers to the forum won't have seen it before. :)

[Waldo]

Revocation of US Independence



G'day Bob Wilson,

What a great post, I love it! :)