Text 14271, 194 rader
Skriven 2005-10-06 12:05:21 av Raymond Yates (1:3613/48)
Kommentar till text 14245 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: forever in debt
=======================
MV> Hello Raymond,
MvdV>>>>>> The US empire won't last that long.
PS>>>>> You expect it to implode before then ?
PS>>>>> That may not be such a bad thing.....
RY>>>> First, we have to become and Empire, we've not done that....
RY>>>> Yet..
BF>>> A country that is accountable for more than 50% of the total
BF>>> military expenditure of the world is not an Empire? Are you
BF>>> kidding us, of course you are!
>> No, and that's not the only component required for a classical
>> empire.
MV> No one used the term "classical empire". Let's call it an "empire new
MV> style" then.
Ok, but we'll have to have a new discussion then..
>> By defintion, empires have conquests of the military nature,
MV> Whose definition?
Classical Empire.
>> and the inhabitants of the conqured lands become vassals of the
>> "winners".
MV> There are some opinion makers here in The Netherlands who say we have
MV> de facto become a vassel state of the US.
Possibly, but "De Facto is not De Jure. This fails the classical test. You are
obviously not subject to US Law, so there you are..
>> Now yes, we have a huge military, chock full with very expensive
>> equipment. And yes, we have troops stationed all over the world
>> (the sun never sets) but there are significant differences.
MV> Not all that significant I'd say.
Sure it is, we do not dictate to the sovereign governments, we do not have a
Governor that dictates policy, we are not in countries as conqueror. In most
cases troops are stationed in foreign countries as part of mutual defense
arrangements, at the invitation of the soverign governments. That's a far cry
from being an occupying power.
>> Most cases (and there are currently exceptions, sad to say) we
>> are where we are by invitation.
MV> I bet Ceasar would make the same claim...
He could try, but he would fail at making people believe it. after all, Gaul
wasn't hurting anyone when he invaded it, and he certainly brought a lot of
it back to Rome when he left.. Fact is even in Iraq, we can be invited to
leave by the government.. although I doubt that's going to happen at this
moment as the results would not be good for the country, but even so.
>> We do not have colonies in the traditional sense of the term,
MV> But you do have them in the *new* sense of th eterm. Hawai is a de
MV> facto colony of the USA. And it does not even need a big strectch of
MV> the imigination to call it a colony in the *tradional* sense of the
MV> terme.
Hawai'i is a state, admitted to the Union. it's not a colony.
While the circumstances of it's original annexation was a bit less than
forthright (something I have had occasion to study) to a degree it falls into
the catagory of a corporate takeover with government collusion, rather than a
colonisation. I would also suggest that the process of the Queen abdicating
in favour of not having a geniune armed revolution was at that tme the wisest
course. I personally would have rather seen it remain a soverign monarchy that
was tendening toward the British model of governing, but it's a bit to late
to change that. There are a number of people devoted to restoring the
monarchy, but I think that effort sadly may be futile.
>> but we do have strong economic ties with countries all
>> over the planet.
MV> Yes....
>> We have not behaved like a traditional empire, in that we have
>> not dictated terms to places we have occupied,
MV> Are you sure about that? My guess is that some would feel different
MV> about that. You may not have doen it at gunpoint but used more subtle
MV> mehods, but I am sure that many would say that you have dictated terms
MV> in some places and on some occasions.
Possibly, but I was referring to the more obvious tack. Of course the more
subtle course is what governments do. Every Government, in fact, as that's
part of what the Ambassador's job is, to convey the sense and opinions of the
government that he serves. I can think of several examples of that within the
last hundred year involving non-US countries, and I'm sure you can, too.
Dictated and persuaded are two different things, after all.
MV> You may already have forgotten about the "The Hague Invasion Act",
MV> but
MV> many here haven't.
MV> Well, that wasn't all that subtle...
Indeed. You'd have to know some of the players in that drama like Senator
Jesse Helms, (he was at the time my Senator) and I agree that it ruffeled
quite a few feathers. Simply put though, the US position /whether I agree/
/with it or not/ is:
"The stated purpose of the amendment was "to protect United States military
personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States
government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to
which the United States is not party". (Wikipedia) You should also be aware
that there are several groups of people in this country that do not like it
either. America is, after all not a monolith of thought, but a deeply
fragmented society. That's what makes politics so much fun..
>> as nearly every place we've been we've left to allow their
>> own sovereign governments to form.
MV> Provided of course those governments were USA friendly. If not...
Even if not.. I can't off-hand think of any place we've been that we're still
in because we didn't like the form of government, Iraq included. Iraq is
charting it's own course, without out interference I might add, and taking a
course we might not have picked for them I might add, but, that's how it
works.
>> Another factor is the fragmentation of power. There is an
>> equal amount of power held in the hands of multinational
>> corporations as there is in our own government.
MV> Just as it was in the 17th century with the VOC and the Dutch
MV> government. There was much power in the hands of Trading Cooperations.
VOC? that like the Dutch East India Company? The same was true with the
British, and the French, but in all those cases they were literally arms of
the State, or very closely associated with it. here' that's not as much the
case. There's several multinational corporations that are quite at odds with
the state, like Monsanto.. and Wal-Mart.
BF>>> But, as I explained in a previous post, your days are
BF>>> numbered. When the economy crashes, it'll be the 1930s all over
BF>>> again. Only this time there will be no Lend & Lease Treaty that
BF>>> will give you the entire wealth of the British Empire, plus the
BF>>> Russian gold reserve.
>> Our days may be numbered , that's true, but if/when the
>> economy crashes (as we know it will) it will be exactly
>> like the 1930's...
>> Worldwide.
MV> Maybe. Maybe not.
Based om my research, there's no maybe not about it. the world is too
interlinked financially for it to be otherwise. if, for example the T-bills
held by other nations become valuless in a collapse, that starts a chain
reaction. How is that going to be stopped? At the moment since no currencies
are backed by anything solid (as far as I know) and they all float, (and the
banks are well aware that they are skaintg on /very/ thin ice) if one goes,
they all go, to greater or lesser degrees.
>> Who comes to the rescue then?
MV> The Chinese?
Doubtful, they hold, I think, the most T-bills ATM.
>> If it were me, I'd not be cheering for the collapse.
MV> I am not cheering. But sticking the head in the sand is no good
MV> either.
And some of us are not doing that at all. One thing that may help here is
renewed economic growth, and there's a plan before Congress ti stimulate that
called the FairTax. It's radical, innovative,and there is a growing vocal
ground-swell of support for it to pass, and become law.
www.fairtax.org
A strong America, /responsibly led/, is not a bad thing..
Not an Empire, but a proponent of Freedom for all, and the raising up of
everyone to their maximum potential..
We may yet even see that again.. but it's been a while.
---
* Origin: Ray's Rocket Shop - Out to Launch (1:3613/48)
|