Western 'Imperialistic' Nations.

Post Reply New Topic

As much as the derogatory term "imperialism" is thrown about regarding America and Israel, do either America or Israel have imperialistic plans with regard to the world? Is Israel actually trying to conquer the people on Gaza strip, and if so, why aren't they being more efficient about it? If America wanted to form an empire, wouldn't it be easier to conquer the geographically adjacent nations first, and also allow for better logistics of plunder-transport? Seriously, if either America or Israel wanted to conquer the world, we could easily do a better job. As it is, the usage of the term "imperialism" is pretty much an hollow insult.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEyCjN9riiY[/youtube]

Once again we see that Fundamentalism not only corrupts reason, it corrupts morality.

The "imperialism" of Western Nations (well, at least the United States) has been written about to great length, if only you carred to look (given your ruveyesque distain for people facing much greater hardships than anything we can imagine, I doubt you have). The "imperialism" isn't direct (totally martial) nor is it stupid (i.e. attacking well-established and cooperative junior partners). It is, first and foremost, an economic imperialism of a very strategic nature (attack or install proxy governments in nations that are poor, developing, and underarmed). Decades of studies with regard to Latin America and America's support for Middle East dictators buttress this concept.

As for Israel's, it's not an empire in its own right so much as a proxy state for that acts (in many cases) in the interests of the American plutocracy. The Israeli system is more apartheid government than an imperial power.

I would still tend to say that talk about "imperialism" for these issues generally tends to just come from ideologically-driven social scientists on the far-left, as while it is undeniable that the US has engaged other nations in a terrible manner on multiple occasions, even to promote its own economic benefit, the problem is with these ideas is that most poorer nations are not strong trade partners with the US, nations that do engage in a lot of trade usually are nations that experience significant growth such as seen with a number of countries, and many of the nations that flounder it can be seen engaged in terrible policy decisions on multiple levels. This is not to say that there are no flukes, this is not to say that the suffering of these people reflects some sort of justice, only to recognize that a very large problem with most developing nations comes with corruption and terrible policies that suppress the ability of these nations to grow. I mean, it is undeniable even today, that a lot of nations out there are engaging in policies that shoot themselves in the foot, despite how Marxists love to blame "the capitalists" at every juncture.

This is not to say that keet's thinking here is correct, as the entire idea of colonialism here is to get nations that can't fight back and in this case to take this role of ruler covertly given the rejection of overt colonialism. Still, I have to consider the entire conception to be ideology at this point.

I'm sorry, but imperialism is the only way a lot of these countries will learn.

The Pakistanis need to ditch the burqa as much as African and Arabian Muslim need to ditch forced marriage.

Of course, not all imperialism is good (some countries have very fine native cultures) but some countries have customs that are patently inferior. Like forcing Muslim women to wear mobile tents on their heads.