US Politics

[silvertop]

Grok is a starting point, but it often has issues. For example, it says the Philippines was “lost” when it reality the US gave the Philippines the same option that it has given Guam, American Samoa and Puerto Rico, they can leave, they can stay as territories or they can become a state. They get to choose. Philippines is actually a fascinating place to study as the US kept a recuring station open in Manila until 1990 for the US Navy. Filipinos actually have a higher opinion of the US then Americans do.

I’m also entertained that you said the US was building a post WWII empire and yet all of your examples are pre-1900. Strange that despite the US controlling Japan, parts of Germany, Republic of Korea and even Greenland since WWII, they didn’t keep any of it.

Not that kind of empire.

Control without occupation.

Empire in all but name.

 

[Mark B]

Dieppe?

Not that big an issue as the dead were mainly Canadian! Colonials for cannon fodder.

Isn't that a tradition though, using colonials for cannon fodder? To be fair, the British Army's Pyrrhic victory during WWI saved Europe at the cost of the long term stability of the British Empire.

Dieppe though was primarily political, the Soviets needed some breathing space and were pushing hard while at the same time Churchill was facing a no confidence vote in the summer of 1942 after the fall of Tobruk. Sometimes you just need to do something to build public confidence as well, as I think Dieppe has some of the Doolittle gamble of the risk to the force being viewed as worth it to the politicians. Sometimes you just don't have a choice.

 

[Mark B]

Not that kind of empire.

Control without occupation.

Empire in all but name.

Then informal empire or Hegemony are better words then Empire.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Grok is a starting point, but it often has issues. For example, it says the Philippines was “lost” when it reality the US gave the Philippines the same option that it has given Guam, American Samoa and Puerto Rico, they can leave, they can stay as territories or they can become a state. They get to choose. Philippines is actually a fascinating place to study as the US kept a recuring station open in Manila until 1990 for the US Navy. Filipinos actually have a higher opinion of the US then Americans do.

I’m also entertained that you said the US was building a post WWII empire and yet all of your examples are pre-1900. Strange that despite the US controlling Japan, parts of Germany, Republic of Korea and even Greenland since WWII, they didn’t keep any of it.

You need to read more closely, I said it did want an empire.....something you denied, yet the evidence is even contained within your states....Some of which shouldn't really be America, Hawaii for example....and I say that as an Englishman whose ancestors kick started America.

Once the American empire had been built up it's been about maintaining it and controlling its clients and in the modern day essentially playing the game against its global competitors China and Russia.....and to a lesser extent Europe....well it's a client at the moment but the US knows if it leaves it's got another problem on its hands.

Your analysis of American Samoa and Puerto Rico is extremely....how should we say....kind. As an outsider commenting I think you should note the colour of your glasses you seem to be wearing, because they are rose tinted.

 

[Mark B]

You need to read more closely, I said it did want an empire.....something you denied, yet the evidence is even contained within your states....Some of which shouldn't really be America, Hawaii for example....and I say that as an Englishman whose ancestors kick started America.

Once the American empire had been built up it's been about maintaining it and controlling its clients and in the modern day essentially playing the game against its global competitors China and Russia.....and to a lesser extent Europe....well it's a client at the moment but the US knows if it leaves it's got another problem on its hands.

Your analysis of American Samoa and Puerto Rico is extremely....how should we say....kind. As an outsider commenting I think you should note the colour of your glasses you seem to be wearing, because they are rose tinted.

If the US wanted an empire then it would be one as there is nothing that could have stopped it. Just the reality of life, especially since the US has controlled portions of it and yet let local governments take it back over while the Americans went home.

Please continue with your fantasy fiction that the US has just been waiting to take over the world through military might. I personally don’t know what the US would actually gain taking over most places that it cannot already do. Influence your media? Your markets? Your economy? Your sports? Over half the Premier League is owned by Americans already, so seriously, what does the US need to conquer anyone and keep them for?

As an outsider you don’t know what you are talking about regarding either Puerto Rico or American Samoa, so your uninformed opinion doesn’t mean much to me.

 

[Stirlingsays]

If the US wanted an empire then it would be one as there is nothing that could have stopped it. Just the reality of life, especially since the US has controlled portions of it and yet let local governments take it back over while the Americans went home.

Really? Like in the places that I mentioned? Like in Texas? Like in Alaska?

Please continue with your fantasy fiction that the US has just been waiting to take over the world through military might. I personally don’t know what the US would actually gain taking over most places that it cannot already do. Influence your media? Your markets? Your economy? Your sports? Over half the Premier League is owned by Americans already, so seriously, what does the US need to conquer anyone and keep them for?

Oh so you spend a lot of time denying the empire exists and then explain to me what actual empire does.....boy oh boy.

As an outsider you don’t know what you are talking about regarding either Puerto Rico or American Samoa, so your uninformed opinion doesn’t mean much to me.

Of course it doesn't mean much to you. You aren't interested in anything other than your rose tints.

But I've only answered a tiny bit of your delusions.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Then informal empire or Hegemony are better words then Empire.

Hegemony is part of empire genius.

Just how do you think hegemony is achieved?

 

[Mark B]

Hegemony is part of empire genius.

Just how do you think hegemony is achieved?

Two different words with different meanings. Empires have direct control, Hegemony is leadership or influence without taking over.

Words have meanings, I would recommend learning them.

 

[Mark B]

Really? Like in the places that I mentioned? Like in Texas? Like in Alaska?



Oh so you spend a lot of time denying the empire exists and then explain to me what actual empire does.....boy oh boy.



Of course it doesn't mean much to you. You aren't interested in anything other than your rose tints.

But I've only answered a tiny bit of your delusions.

You mean the Texas that gained its independence from Mexico and then chose to join the US? Or the Alaska that the US bought from the Russians?

I seem to be spending a fair amount of time trying to explain what words actually mean instead of making up definitions like you seem to do.

I prefer to talk to people with a skin in the game, like Puerto Ricans and people from American Samoa and Guam. If your opinion was informed it would be one thing, but you don't even know the basics so its meaningless writing about US territories with you since you don't know how they function.

You aren't Sydney Sweeney or Shakira, so you cannot help me with my delusions.

Dude, don't you sleep?

 

[HKOwen]

Surely Texas joined the USA primarily because it was broke, same reason Scotland signed the Act of Union.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Two different words with different meanings. Empires have direct control, Hegemony is leadership or influence without taking over.

Words have meanings, I would recommend learning them.

I was a teacher you were a grunt mate.

Empires have direct control over the land mass they control and hegemony over their client states.

True since before Rome, true for us, true for you.

 

[Stirlingsays]

You mean the Texas that gained its independence from Mexico and then chose to join the US? Or the Alaska that the US bought from the Russians?

Yes, you know the two states with the biggest independent movements because they aren't really that American. Texas is actually another example of war used for Empire expansion.....Not that I'm pro Mexican over the States. Mexico took it from Spain and you took it from Mexico.

I seem to be spending a fair amount of time trying to explain what words actually mean instead of making up definitions like you seem to do.

I prefer to talk to people with a skin in the game, like Puerto Ricans and people from American Samoa and Guam. If your opinion was informed it would be one thing, but you don't even know the basics so its meaningless writing about US territories with you since you don't know how they function.

You aren't Sydney Sweeney or Shakira, so you cannot help me with my delusions.

Dude, don't you sleep?

You are correct that I'm weaker on places like Puerto Rico, American Samoa and Guam.

But I have eyes in my head, those aren't Americans and are part of Empire, whether they wanted to be or didn't.

My relationship with sleep.....is complicated.

 

[Spindle]

So you prefer just England? Works for me, whatever makes you happy.

The pass back to Europeans on defense actually started with Eisenhower back in the 1950s. He hit on many of the same problems today while recognizing that most of Europe was not economically capable of taking on that role. Especially following the collapse of the Soviet Union American Presidents pushed for it but they were polite about it, unlike Trump who seems to derive almost sexual pleasure from pointing out European issues.

Cart before the horse.

The requirement to spend so much on arms was because the USA fed that. The soviets said they were arming up but they really weren't, not on nukes anyway. Instead they spent on the people. Then when they realised just how far the USA was in front and how they were pouring it in to fight communism globally they started diverting those resources to the nuke programmes. It affected the people and bankrupted them by 1990.

I'm on the USA side in this btw, just saying that the industrial military complex was not a reaction, it was a cause.

It also goes some way to explain our tech advantage due to decades or real investment.

 

[silvertop]

Then informal empire or Hegemony are better words then Empire.

Or superpower or any other branding word that avoids calling it what it is.

 

[Mark B]

I was a teacher you were a grunt mate.

Empires have direct control over the land mass they control and hegemony over their client states.

True since before Rome, true for us, true for you.

I actually was grunt before I became a Professor.

You can have hegemony over other states without direct control, that is why two separate words exist.

 

[Mark B]

Cart before the horse.

The requirement to spend so much on arms was because the USA fed that. The soviets said they were arming up but they really weren't, not on nukes anyway. Instead they spent on the people. Then when they realised just how far the USA was in front and how they were pouring it in to fight communism globally they started diverting those resources to the nuke programmes. It affected the people and bankrupted them by 1990.

I'm on the USA side in this btw, just saying that the industrial military complex was not a reaction, it was a cause.

It also goes some way to explain our tech advantage due to decades or real investment.

The Soviet Union had roughly 12.4 million in uniform, the majority along the border, staged to go into what remained of non-Soviet controlled Europe. They didn't need nuclear weapons to be a threat, their size and combat power made them a huge threat.

Trying to keep up with the US was part of the problem, it wasn't the only reason for the Soviet's downfall. Other areas of importance were the rise of West Germany as a comparison and the insane amount of corruption within the Soviet system. Russia and Ukraine both have similar issues today.

I appreciate the assist. I think a situation arouse where the US had the military and fiscal capability to do it and Europeans were mentally exhausted from centuries of fighting. Add in socialism to the mix (on the mainland and drastically less in the UK) and you have a a confluence where people can see what is going on but they have other priorities of what to do with their limited resources. Like kids and their parents, if they can get their parents to pay some bills then most are ok with it.

The US is a unique situation when it comes to technology that it has far less restrictions then most other countries and also has the starting capital for those companies to get off the ground. Europe has some important features such as minimal corruption compared to most Asian countries, but the overregulation kills them time and again.

 

[Mark B]

Yes, you know the two states with the biggest independent movements because they aren't really that American. Texas is actually another example of war used for Empire expansion.....Not that I'm pro Mexican over the States. Mexico took it from Spain and you took it from Mexico.



You are correct that I'm weaker on places like Puerto Rico, American Samoa and Guam.

But I have eyes in my head, those aren't Americans and are part of Empire, whether they wanted to be or didn't.

My relationship with sleep.....is complicated.

Texas was an independent republic before a decade before deciding to join the US.

California on the other hand, the US totally took that by force from Mexico. So while your viewpoint does have merit in some areas, you just were not using the right examples.

If you are using the Merriam Webster definition of empire (a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority), then basically every current country in the world except the city-states would be considered empires. If that is the standard that you are using, then yes, the US, UK, Canada and Ireland are all empires.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I actually was grunt before I became a Professor.

Professor of what?

Jingoism?

You can have hegemony over other states without direct control, that is why two separate words exist.

Of course you can.

For crying out loud the British Empire did exactly the same thing and all the empires before it.

Hegemony is far less expensive than direct control....part of empire.....puppets willing to do your bidding because the alternative sees them forced out.....all of if is dirty and some of it evil.....drug cartels with more CIA involvement than foreign with the US government pretending to be against it.

In Europe it's a different type of hegemony and based on defence, trade....which is essentially money. Some of Trump's arguments on this were valid, but as always he goes too far and sh1ts the pot.

 

[Mark B]

Professor of what?

Jingoism?



Of course you can.

For crying out loud the British Empire did exactly the same thing and all the empires before it.

Hegemony is far less expensive than direct control....part of empire.....puppets willing to do your bidding because the alternative sees them forced out.....all of if is dirty and some of it evil.....drug cartels with more CIA involvement than foreign with the US government pretending to be against it.

In Europe it's a different type of hegemony and based on defence, trade....which is essentially money. Some of Trump's arguments on this were valid, but as always he goes too far and sh1ts the pot.

I've actually been a Professor of History and a Professor of Doctrine. Either works.

The difference between empire and hegemony has to do with actual control. The British Empire had actual control over a significant portion of the world and for a while, hegemony over basically anything that could be reach by the ocean that was not theirs.

 

[DanH]

I've actually been a Professor of History and a Professor of Doctrine. Either works.

The difference between empire and hegemony has to do with actual control. The British Empire had actual control over a significant portion of the world and for a while, hegemony over basically anything that could be reach by the ocean that was not theirs.

You’ll never win against the Professor of Doing His Own Research.