American Empire?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Morgoths_Wrath
Can you call the United States an empire? Why or why not? If so in what ways does it function as an empire? If not, why can't it be considered an empire?

Alliance
I'd say no. We definately had one though. (another sign Rumslfed is a complete ignoramus >> he claimed America never had any colonial/imperial interests).

We currently have our hands over everything and were the bully on campus, but we don't physcially have direct control over too many governments yet. We are becoming empire-like though, you could definately make a good case for it.

Fire
No, it's a cultural and political (political only partly tho) Hegemony

Alliance
id say more political than cultural. why do you think its the other way around?

debbiejo
Empire......don't think so. Influential yes......Important to the rest of the world, mmmmm yep. If we go down, will take others down with us........ahhhh, yeah I think so......

Soooooooo Please buy American goods, the life you save might be your own. stick out tongue

This add is sponsored by your friendly friends on the Internet....

Tangible God
In comparison to what we call the European and Asian empires of the past, America's not one.

Fire
Originally posted by Alliance
id say more political than cultural. why do you think its the other way around?

Because it's political system (liberal democracy) is not followed as widely as it's cultural system (liberal capitalism) in the world.

US decisions are of great importance and influences in both areas but I still think that altho it has established a cultural hegemony in areas like the middle east and china. It's political hegemony is not as strong in those area's of the globe. Unless ofc it is forced on those regions by means of war, but that kinda destroys the hegemony idea in my opinion.

-Tired Hiker-
I think it can be considered an Empire, because we striked back against terrorism! The Empire Strikes Back! Get it!


Okay, I promise I won't treat this place like the OTF from this point on. My bad.

Alliance
Originally posted by Fire
Because it's political system (liberal democracy) is not followed as widely as it's cultural system (liberal capitalism) in the world.

US decisions are of great importance and influences in both areas but I still think that altho it has established a cultural hegemony in areas like the middle east and china. It's political hegemony is not as strong in those area's of the globe. Unless ofc it is forced on those regions by means of war, but that kinda destroys the hegemony idea in my opinion.

Well, the political system of the us is a constitutionally based federal republic, but the US has been responsible, along with France, for introducing democratic ideals. I'd argue that those democratic ideals and its use of a constitution make the US a very powerful political force. If those dont do it, there's always our army messed.

I think liberal capitalism applies to government to. Culture applies more to daily life, music, art, architecture, and general ideals. I think a lot of american culture is based off of the philosophy of our government.

Fire
yea, but the use of an army, atleast the use of force, does not make a hegemony. You are right about constitutional legacy, that's a big influence, but again regions like China and arabia don't really care about consitutions (atleast not consitutions that proclaim democratic ideas and liberties)

capitalism is important, for music, art, architecture and general ideals. capitalism is a way of thinking that affects everything in society. With capitalism our culture would not be what it is now. the government has surely promoted capitalism, for economy and politics go together.

But I still think that eventho regions like arabia and china don't copy the US base for the political system. They have all accepted capitalism as a way of life. China only recently, but arabia a long time ago, eventho they don't really care about the politics that 'should' go with it.

Koenig
America is a superpower. but it is not an Empire.

cking
yes America is a superpower but it is not even close to being an empire. the u.s is slowly losing that power. I would predict another country will replace america as the superpower of the world less than 100 years from now. I think china will someway or another just because it is a dark horse and it has great potential, despite its large population and having less children because of that. some of the major concerns of america will bring it down if it isn't solved. like gay marriage, illegal immigration, social security, the welfare system, losing factories to other countries, the war in Iraq, class ism which is starting to become a major concern now, the possibility of another civil war many years from now, the bird flu,scandals involving government officials, terrorist attacks from both natives and foreigners, these are the things that will bring the u.s down not from losing any war or anything else.

Grimm22
The only people who consider America an empire are commies and other jerks who hate freedom usaflag

cking
are you sure about that?

who?-kid
I don't know if America is an empire. We can argue all night about that.

What I do know however, and this is a fact, that it acts like an Empire. Especially behind closed curtains.

Alliance
its simply a hyper-power.

Grimm22
Originally posted by who?-kid
I don't know if America is an empire. We can argue all night about that.

What I do know however, and this is a fact, that it acts like an Empire. Especially behind closed curtains.

People always complain that America polices the world.

However look back at Pre- WWII. When America was in isolation, there were wars and horrible things going on.

And since the UN is so corrupt, the US had to stand up and defend those who cant defend themselves.

Now if the UN actually did their jobs, this wouldnt be the case

who?-kid
Originally posted by Grimm22
People always complain that America polices the world.
Yes but it DOES police the world. That's a cold fact. It manipulates everywhere, and where it doesn't succeed in bribing, it succeeds in throwing over the government and replacing it with a more America orientated government. The examples of this are almost countless...

Before you think I attack America, I attack the way of thinking of the White House, not the American people. I hope you can see the difference.

True. Europe for example wouldn't be the same without America. America helped Europe to beat the Nazis (though they didn't lift a finger until they were bombed at Pearl Harbour by Japan, the allies of Germany).

Don't make me laugh. The White House only is interested in the countries with rich (oil)supplies, or in countries who have something to do with (oil)supplies.

The most horrible things are happening now in Africa (Rwanda, Sudan) it's plain mass murder, and it's going on for years and years. Have you ever heard America say one thing about Africa ? Nope. Why not ? Because Africa is poor...

Well like usual the UN will probably clean up the mess America made (like in Afghanistan and very likely in Iraq).

Alliance
Originally posted by Grimm22
People always complain that America polices the world.

However look back at Pre- WWII. When America was in isolation, there were wars and horrible things going on.

And since the UN is so corrupt, the US had to stand up and defend those who cant defend themselves.

Now if the UN actually did their jobs, this wouldnt be the case

The UN can't do its job because the US treats it like sh*t. The UN is to be above every nation...including the US. Untill that is the case (and the UN gets an army) the UN will be able to be what it was meant to be.

And the US's craptastic foreign policies have done a lot of damage to the world. American arraogance.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by debbiejo
Empire......don't think so. Influential yes......Important to the rest of the world, mmmmm yep. If we go down, will take others down with us........ahhhh, yeah I think so......

Soooooooo Please buy American goods, the life you save might be your own. stick out tongue

This add is sponsored by your friendly friends on the Internet....

Well, I don't think that America will be selling goods to allot of people soon, China is supplying the world with cheap to make goods, and the EU is soon to ban shoes made in China from coming into the European Market because they don't want it to hurt Euro-Industry, chances are, the Union Will become entirely self-sufficiant.

And with China meeting the rest of the worlds needs...not alot of people for America to sell too...

Grimm22
Originally posted by Alliance
The UN can't do its job because the US treats it like sh*t. The UN is to be above every nation...including the US. Untill that is the case (and the UN gets an army) the UN will be able to be what it was meant to be.

And the US's craptastic foreign policies have done a lot of damage to the world. American arraogance.

The US dosent respect the UN because we know how corrupt it is.

Heck Koffi Annan was in bed with guys like Saddam Hussien no expression

Grimm22
Originally posted by who?-kid

Yes but it DOES police the world. That's a cold fact. It manipulates everywhere, and where it doesn't succeed in bribing, it succeeds in throwing over the government and replacing it with a more America orientated government. The examples of this are almost countless...

Before you think I attack America, I attack the way of thinking of the White House, not the American people. I hope you can see the difference.


Thats allways good to hear erm



Because we just got out of the depression and we didnt want to fight a war that had nothing to do with us.



Yeah because the US is getting so much oil from going into Iraq roll eyes (sarcastic)



I agree that is crap. However it is the UN's job to prevent Genocide. Yet, guys like Kofi Annan ignored stuff like Rwanda, even though he knew what was going on. He just didnt care



The UN hasnt done crap in Afganistan and Iraq has had a large decline in violence and look at all the achiements we got out of Iraq.

No more evil dicatator. No more opression. No more radical islamists. Democracy. Right now it may seem like nothing but I assure that we will be glad Iraq was libberated wink

who?-kid
Originally posted by Grimm22
Because we just got out of the depression and we didnt want to fight a war that had nothing to do with us.
True.

Right now, there's a real civil war going on in Iraq : the body count is very high. I'm not holding the US responsible for that - nobody could foresee something like this - but the fact remains it's a HUGE mess in Iraq.

Believe it or not, though Saddam was a real dictator and though the people were oppressed, it was not as bad as you may think : the citizens of the surrounding countries (Iran, Syria and such) who have Islamic governments - Iraq didn't - are at least as oppressed as back then in Iraq. And the women even more.

I'm not so sure if the situation has become better without Saddam. He was of course a ruthless dictator who deserves to be shot, but as much as I hate to say it, Iraq was more or less a calm land a few years ago.

cking
there has always been a civil war or civil wars over in the middle east not just Iraq. it is always a huge mess in Iraq and it will continue to be so. Saddam is just a puny dictator in a puny country and it was actually better because at least it had some sort of order and rules for everyone to obey, despite whatever the bad things he did. some citizens were pleased that he was ousted but some were pissed off at the u.s. saddam is not a ruthless dictator compared to Mussolini, Hitler, or Stalin. he is just a shit that had nothing else to do besides being a pimp in his country.

Grimm22
Originally posted by who?-kid
True.

Right now, there's a real civil war going on in Iraq : the body count is very high. I'm not holding the US responsible for that - nobody could foresee something like this - but the fact remains it's a HUGE mess in Iraq.

Believe it or not, though Saddam was a real dictator and though the people were oppressed, it was not as bad as you may think : the citizens of the surrounding countries (Iran, Syria and such) who have Islamic governments - Iraq didn't - are at least as oppressed as back then in Iraq. And the women even more.

I'm not so sure if the situation has become better without Saddam. He was of course a ruthless dictator who deserves to be shot, but as much as I hate to say it, Iraq was more or less a calm land a few years ago.

Agreed.

I think going into Iraq was a good thing, however the way we went in was stupid if you ask me.

Then again the entire war could have been avoided if that f*ck Saddam and his sons had left the country cursing

JohnBieniek
Originally posted by Grimm22
Agreed.

I think going into Iraq was a good thing, however the way we went in was stupid if you ask me.

Then again the entire war could have been avoided if that f*ck Saddam and his sons had left the country cursing

I agree.

Neutro
I also agree, although I don't think we should aburptly get up and leave, nor do I think we should be there for the next ten years with the civil war that we're in the middle of over there. Oh, and to stay on topic, America isn't an Empire because 1) No Emperor 2) Democracy. 3) Not a dictatorship.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
Can you call the United States an empire? Why or why not? If so in what ways does it function as an empire? If not, why can't it be considered an empire?

No. Only people who wish to paint Americans as "Bloothirsy warmongers" say that.

Its nothing but an untrue epithet.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
Can you call the United States an empire? Why or why not? If so in what ways does it function as an empire? If not, why can't it be considered an empire?

I think I am going to say that America is an Empire.

A lot of things America does resemble other empires in History. America does have control. It decides which people will be in power in which country - Saddam Hussein was put in power by the America. Afghanistan's government is the one which America chose.

When Castro dies, America will get involved in deciding who will be next political leader.

Its a lot like Rome has been few thousand years ago. IT used to invade other countries, accusing them of being uneducated and not being advanced. In return Rome was gonna offer them education and advance - or they will die.

Sure its an Empire. But China might be challenging soon.

JOE NUNEZ
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I think I am going to say that America is an Empire.

A lot of things America does resemble other empires in History. America does have control. It decides which people will be in power in which country - Saddam Hussein was put in power by the America. Afghanistan's government is the one which America chose.

When Castro dies, America will get involved in deciding who will be next political leader.

Its a lot like Rome has been few thousand years ago. IT used to invade other countries, accusing them of being uneducated and not being advanced. In return Rome was gonna offer them education and advance - or they will die.

Sure its an Empire. But China might be challenging soon. Well Castro is not in power now, his brother is. Why hasn't America gotten involved? Also why would America keep a guy like Chavez in power.

Alliance
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I think I am going to say that America is an Empire.

A lot of things America does resemble other empires in History. America does have control. It decides which people will be in power in which country - Saddam Hussein was put in power by the America. Afghanistan's government is the one which America chose.

When Castro dies, America will get involved in deciding who will be next political leader.

Its a lot like Rome has been few thousand years ago. IT used to invade other countries, accusing them of being uneducated and not being advanced. In return Rome was gonna offer them education and advance - or they will die.

Sure its an Empire. But China might be challenging soon.

Its Empire-ish. Often Americans confuse NOT building empires with complacency and isolationism.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by JOE NUNEZ
Well Castro is not in power now, his brother is. Why hasn't America gotten involved? Also why would America keep a guy like Chavez in power.

Castro isn't dead yet, though. And America will no interfere where it has no gain.


Originally posted by Alliance
Its Empire-ish. Often Americans confuse NOT building empires with complacency and isolationism.

I concur.

Alliance
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I concur.

We're still power-tripping from the Cold War. Clinton got somewhat away from that...but I seriously want to write a paper on how Bush has cast "The War on Terror" as a second Cold War.

Its a shame. We need to...expedite...the political retirement of that generation.

office jesus
Originally posted by Koenig
America is a superpower. but it is not an Empire.

Not yet.

KingTut
First before anyone can say anything we have to state what an empire is. According to my dictionary and empire is:
"An extensive group of states or countries under control of one government."
You can't debate anymore. America is an empire according to this definition. We sure did take out a hell of a lot indian states to get where we are now. We also took land from Spain and purchased Lousiana from the French.

RedAlertv2
Imperialism is alive and well here in the US. Example: Iraq.

Strangelove
To be considered an empire requires for a country to have direct control over a number of other territories, not recognized nations. Rome had an empire. England have a (sort of) empire, since they still indirectly control Australia and Canada. America does not have an 'empire.' We have Puerto Rico, half the Virgin Islands, Samoa, and Guam. Hardly an empire.

We have considerable influence, yes, but not an empire.

Alliance
We HAD and empire. We have our hands in everybody elses cookie jars, but no Empire.

KingTut
Alliance, why would we have an empire and then lose it if we didn't lose any territory? Stranglove, we have all of continental United States! That's at least four times as much territory as we had when we left the control of Britain! The American Empire is an empire if I've ever seen.

Bardock42
"a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire. "


No. Not an empire.

KingTut
The U.S. is definately a group of people ruled over by a powerful sovereign government. Let me say though, that's a lousy definition. It's too unspecific. Next, the Bush administration rules much like the British, and Roman governments did. You have an executive leader who has all the power. The legislative branch of the U.S. is too weak and corrupt to say no to the president who has veto power. The courts are responsible for Bush's presidency and are behind completely. Bush lies and exagerates to the public to start wars, like many emperors of the past and he's rigged all of the presidentialelections he has ran in recently. He's the son of the first Bush. It's an imperialistic government. It fits your dictionaries' definition.

Bardock42
Originally posted by KingTut
The U.S. is definately a group of people ruled over by a powerful sovereign government. Let me say though, that's a lousy definition. It's too unspecific. Next, the Bush administration rules much like the British, and Roman governments did. You have an executive leader who has all the power. The legislative branch of the U.S. is too weak and corrupt to say no to the president who has veto power. The courts are responsible for Bush's presidency and are behind completely. Bush lies and exagerates to the public to start wars, like many emperors of the past and he's rigged all of the presidentialelections he has ran in recently. He's the son of the first Bush. It's an imperialistic government. It fits your dictionaries' definition.

It say peoples. Not people.

And they are not ruled. They rule themselves.

KingTut
It is a peoples! Native Americans, Latinos, Caucasians, African Americans, Asians...etc. and this country is ruled by a government. In fact it's a fascist government. A fascist government has been defined as the following:

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
5. Rampant sexism
6. A controlled mass media
7. Obsession with national security
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together
9. Power of corporations protected
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
14. Fraudulent elections

It's a perfect match. That's right, not only are we "ruled," we are ruled by a fascist dictator.

Fishy
Only you aren't ruled by a dictator seeing as the people still have the ability to choose who they want to rule them. Elections at least the first one might have been won through cheating and perhaps it was then made legal through judges that shouldn't have been there. It doesn't meant that the house of representatives and the senate are not democratic.

The US is not a fascist state.

KingTut
Originally posted by Fishy
Only you aren't ruled by a dictator seeing as the people still have the ability to choose who they want to rule them. Elections at least the first one might have been won through cheating and perhaps it was then made legal through judges that shouldn't have been there. It doesn't meant that the house of representatives and the senate are not democratic.

The US is not a fascist state.

You are missing the point! Congress is a puppet institution and so are the judges.

Fishy
Originally posted by KingTut
You are missing the point! Congress is a puppet institution and so are the judges.

Even if what you say is true, which is quite ridiculous as there are indeed differences between the people in congress, but even if the people of congress are still elected into office by the people. So if the people in the US are to stupid to change things and elect different leaders then the democratically elected government where everything sucks is still their own choice.

As long as you have the freedom to choose who will lead and everybody can put him or herself up for office you are not in a fascist state. Everything else is just policy created by the people who were elected into office and should be representing the will of the people. If not you should just choose new leaders.

Bardock42
Well....what fishy said.

KingTut
Originally posted by Fishy
Even if what you say is true, which is quite ridiculous as there are indeed differences between the people in congress, but even if the people of congress are still elected into office by the people. So if the people in the US are to stupid to change things and elect different leaders then the democratically elected government where everything sucks is still their own choice.

As long as you have the freedom to choose who will lead and everybody can put him or herself up for office you are not in a fascist state. Everything else is just policy created by the people who were elected into office and should be representing the will of the people. If not you should just choose new leaders.

Maybe the it is a little far to say congress is completely a puppet, but regardless of the party that has majority, Bush can do what Bush wants to do. However, on your second point, Bush rigged both elections. He was not elected.

Fishy
Originally posted by KingTut
Maybe the it is a little far to say congress is completely a puppet, but regardless of the party that has majority, Bush can do what Bush wants to do. However, on your second point, Bush rigged both elections. He was not elected.

He may have rigged the first elections, there is even some "proof" of that. And as illegal as it was, the US people still didn't stand up. Corrupt leaders are apparently accepted, I have seen no conclusive evidence to suggest that he also rigged the second elections. To be honest this is the first time I heard it.

And that was still only his first term, as wrong as it was.

And Bush can't do whatever he wants, unless I completely misunderstand the American system. But if Bush can do whatever he wants then what's the point of congress? If he can just ignore it move around it and throw people out, what's the use?

Bardock42
Originally posted by KingTut
Maybe the it is a little far to say congress is completely a puppet, but regardless of the party that has majority, Bush can do what Bush wants to do. However, on your second point, Bush rigged both elections. He was not elected.

No, he can't.

The US just isn't an empire. What's so hard about that?

Strangelove
Originally posted by KingTut
You are missing the point! Congress is a puppet institution and so are the judges. Congress and the Supreme Court are only 'puppet institutions' if they decide not to do their civic duty and echo everything the President says

KingTut
Originally posted by Fishy
He may have rigged the first elections, there is even some "proof" of that. And as illegal as it was, the US people still didn't stand up. Corrupt leaders are apparently accepted, I have seen no conclusive evidence to suggest that he also rigged the second elections. To be honest this is the first time I heard it.

And that was still only his first term, as wrong as it was.

And Bush can't do whatever he wants, unless I completely misunderstand the American system. But if Bush can do whatever he wants then what's the point of congress? If he can just ignore it move around it and throw people out, what's the use?

I'm pretty sure that he cheated in 2004. Some democratic districts' polls closed early. The evidence is a little dodgy, I'll give you that, but after all the other indecent things Bush has done, I think he was up to something.

KingTut
Originally posted by Strangelove
Congress and the Supreme Court are only 'puppet institutions' if they decide not to do their civic duty and echo everything the President says

And that's what they have been doing.

KingTut
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, he can't.

The US just isn't an empire. What's so hard about that?

Why couldn't he?

Sorry if I seem stubborn. I just truly believe the US is an empire. Why would they different then any other superpower in history?

Bardock42
Originally posted by KingTut
Why couldn't he?

Sorry if I seem stubborn. I just truly believe the US is an empire. Why would they different then any other superpower in history?
You have a constitution. And a branch system. Bush is far from an absolute ruler.

But they aren't different. Much. The term Empire just doesn't apply to it. It doesn'thave any colonies and no possesions in foreign countries (well, none they won't give back)

They are also a democracy.

Alliance
Originally posted by KingTut
Why couldn't he?

Sorry if I seem stubborn. I just truly believe the US is an empire. Why would they different then any other superpower in history?

As Bardock pointed out, the evidence against this claim is simply the S government.

We live in a Republic, not an empire. If you think the US fits the defintion of an Empire, you need to brush up on your political systems.

KingTut
Originally posted by Alliance
As Bardock pointed out, the evidence against this claim is simply the S government.

We live in a Republic, not an empire. If you think the US fits the defintion of an Empire, you need to brush up on your political systems.

No, quite frankly, you do. The Romans were suposedely a republic (with an emperor), but we call it an empire. So were the British and Russians (Soviet Union), the French and Germans (I'm refering to Hitler.) Don't let the fact that we have a president instead of an emperor, king, premier or First Consul stop you. The American even appears to be heridetary now.

Next time, before you question someone's intelligence, think.

Fishy
Originally posted by KingTut
No, quite frankly, you do. The Romans were suposedely a republic (with an emperor), but we call it an empire. So were the British and Russians (Soviet Union), the French and Germans (I'm refering to Hitler.) Don't let the fact that we have a president instead of an emperor, king, premier or First Consul stop you. The American even appears to be heridetary now.

Next time, before you question someone's intelligence, think.

You are the only one not thinking clearly here...

Bush did not inherit the thrown of the United States he got elected into office sort off. He can be thrown out by the justice system, congress does not follow him by definition and he has to convince the people he is right. He has a lot of power that is true, but only for a few more years, after that he is gone and somebody new will show up and take power over the United States. Bush will be gone.

Meaning he's not an emperor, he's not even an absolute ruler. He just has a shit load of power in his second term in office.

KingTut
Originally posted by Fishy
You are the only one not thinking clearly here...

Bush did not inherit the thrown of the United States he got elected into office sort off. He can be thrown out by the justice system, congress does not follow him by definition and he has to convince the people he is right. He has a lot of power that is true, but only for a few more years, after that he is gone and somebody new will show up and take power over the United States. Bush will be gone.

Meaning he's not an emperor, he's not even an absolute ruler. He just has a shit load of power in his second term in office.

I'm thinking very clearly thank you very much.

Bush didn't "inherit the throne," no, but he inherited the name, friends, and all the necessary tools from his father to get where his now. His father had recieved many of his tools from his own father: Prescott Bush. Any fool can reach the white house with a father like George. It's a dynasty. Clinton was only a moderate "new age" democrat that had to follow the rules given by the congress which had to fill in for the Bushes. Now that we have another Bush in the white house, congress has let Bush fulfill his role as absolute ruler of the American Empire under the disguise of another "president." It all seems obvious to me.

Fishy
Originally posted by KingTut
I'm thinking very clearly thank you very much.

Bush didn't "inherit the throne," no, but he inherited the name, friends, and all the necessary tools from his father to get where his now. His father had recieved many of his tools from his own father: Prescott Bush. Any fool can reach the white house with a father like George. It's a dynasty. Clinton was only a moderate "new age" democrat that had to follow the rules given by the congress which had to fill in for the Bushes. Now that we have another Bush in the white house, congress has let Bush fulfill his role as absolute ruler of the American Empire under the disguise of another "president." It all seems obvious to me.

Bush using the tools he had to get into office only speaks for him, it wouldn't make the President of the United States a inherited title.

The very fact that he still got elected into office much like the people in congress and the people in the house of representatives make it very clear that there is indeed something like free choice in the United States and that the people have the ability to elect who they want to lead them.

That they happened to have chosen Bush and his Father means that they obviously at the time of the elections felt those two were most suited to do the job. All other things are irrelevant and Bush will still be gone in a few years and somebody will have to run for office again to get his job. And the people will have to put their trust into that particular person. You can't just walk up to the Oval office put your ass in the chair and say "I am President" you still have to get the people's approval, meaning not an Empire with an emperor but a democracy with a by the people elected head of state.

KingTut
Originally posted by Fishy
Bush using the tools he had to get into office only speaks for him, it wouldn't make the President of the United States a inherited title.

The very fact that he still got elected into office much like the people in congress and the people in the house of representatives make it very clear that there is indeed something like free choice in the United States and that the people have the ability to elect who they want to lead them.

That they happened to have chosen Bush and his Father means that they obviously at the time of the elections felt those two were most suited to do the job. All other things are irrelevant and Bush will still be gone in a few years and somebody will have to run for office again to get his job. And the people will have to put their trust into that particular person. You can't just walk up to the Oval office put your ass in the chair and say "I am President" you still have to get the people's approval, meaning not an Empire with an emperor but a democracy with a by the people elected head of state.

By tools, I mean tools that Bush can use to rig the election.

Fishy
Originally posted by KingTut
By tools, I mean tools that Bush can use to rig the election.

Bush can't be elected three times. Bush will be gone, the American people will elect somebody else.

Meaning democracy

RaventheOnly
Empire implies that there is an absolute ruler and in that interpretation one can argue taht the seperation of powers negates that, along with elected office.

If we go by Land expanse and political dominance i would say yes, there is even tribute to the US through economic deals, however the US makes almost as many donations which previous empires, if we hold them as precident would not practice. Most colonial empires for example physically controlled the resources and siphoned them to the motherland without profit to the inhabitance.

Tangible God
The British Empire didn't have an absolute ruler.

I wouldn't count America as an Empire simply due to the fact that it hasn't annexed the countries it has troops or strong economic influence in.

RaventheOnly
Britain had an absolute ruler up to King James. Though they were a constitutional monarchy from henceforth to this day one can see that during the industrial revolution their citizens gradually gained rights but in comparison to the Americas at the tiem they were significantly behind and the king/queen retained an amount of influence and power comparable to a Caesar in Rome; which we can hold as precident as a true empire.

And yes there are many things that one must compare on many different levels to consider soemthing an empire. I basically jsut claimed that if we went solely on economic or influential power over other countries one can perhaps consider those qualities similair to taht of an Empires.

Penelope
Well, since Empires at their Peek, tend to be the Richest "entities" on Earth, with the most gold mines and or natural resources and most importantly, Influence. That would add to the "argument" as to weather America is an Empire or Not. But....

Also keep in mind that a true Emperor, is supposedly "God on Earth", or "Gods Son On Earth". I seriously doubt that any American thinks of Bush as a God. lol

Tangible God
Well there is this little place called the South...

And you can still have an empire at their peek, but still lag behind other entities.

Penelope
Originally posted by Tangible God
Well there is this little place called the South...

And you can still have an empire at their peek, but still lag behind other entities.

Good point. Many Empires tended to have enemies who were more advanced then them. Which would also be a good reason for the Empire to attempt to conquer that enemy, to gain new "knowledge", the knowledge they needed to sustain their Power.

Cosmo Kramer
Yes, America is an Empire but its crumbling much like the Roman or British Empire due to the fact that we have too much influence in the Middle East and can't actually expand anymore without looking evil, so we'll just pretend were fighting terrorism by occupying lands where the government hates us and slowly move towards their resources until its time to pounce and lower gas prices the American Way....or maybe our government will just take their enemies land and allow companies to charge whatever they want, as long as they get a cut.

IHateCaesar
we have a republic

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.