Is the United States' Credibility in Tatters?

[Clinton Huxley]

I think you can call the USA an "empire", with a small "e". It may not have an Emperor but it does have a military presence in most of the world's countries and a controlling interest in many international institutions.I've seen South America in the 19th century described as Britain's "informal empire" as we had such big investments there. You could reasonably view the USA along those lines without bending the dictionary definition of "empire" too far.

I know USians don't like the USA to be called an "empire" because their country was born from rebelling against one but hey ho.

CES - I sense......disagreement......

[Coito ergo sum]

I think you can call the USA an "empire", with a small "e". It may not have an Emperor but it does have a military presence in most of the world's countries and a controlling interest in many international institutions.I've seen South America in the 19th century described as Britain's "informal empire" as we had such big investments there. You could reasonably view the USA along those lines without bending the dictionary definition of "empire" too far.

The difference here was that Britain was an Empire because it had conquests and colonial holdings all over the world and at the time it officially held about 1/4 of the world's surface in sway. That's an Empire, and one of the largest in history. The "informal" bits were parts where it had influence but were not part of its empire.

I know USians don't like the USA to be called an "empire" because their country was born from rebelling against one but hey ho.

CES - I sense......disagreement......

Sure, that is true, but some folks don't like it being called an "empire" because it simply is not one.

em·pire [em-pahyuhr; for 8–10 also om-peer] Show IPA
noun
1.
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.
2.
a government under an emperor or empress.
3.
( often initial capital letter ) the historical period during which a nation is under such a government: a history of the second French empire.
4.
supreme power in governing; imperial power; sovereignty: Austria's failure of empire in central Europe.
5.
supreme control; absolute sway: passion's empire over the mind.

Britain was an empire because it had an emperor and an empress, depending on the regime, and it was a "group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress..." it was a "government under an emperor or empress," and it was extant during a "historical period during which a nation is under such government: a history of the [British] Empire." And it was a supreme power in governing, an imperial power, sovreignty, etc.

The US has influence, but that influence is almost always subject to consent of the countries at issue. We don't have an empire.

Just as merkins don't want the US considered an empire because we were founded as a rebellion against one, so too, though, do many Yerpeeins specifically WANT the US to be dubbed "an empire" so the US can be seen as not occupying any sort of high ground on that note. Anything to bring the US down, as it were...

DISCLAIMER -- saying we are not an Empire is NOT equivalent to saying that there is nothing wrong with the US, that it does no wrong, or that its influence is always justified and used properly. Those are different issues.

[Clinton Huxley]

Hey, don't attribute part of my post to Seth, CES. I'm sure neither of us would be pleased.

I know the dictionary definition of "empire", funnily enough. I think the US has suffficient of the attributes of one to count. It's a reasonable shorthand.

[Coito ergo sum]

Hey, don't attribute part of my post to Seth, CES. I'm sure neither of us would be pleased.

fixed.

I know the dictionary definition of "empire", funnily enough. I think the US has suffficient of the attributes of one to count. It's a reasonable shorthand.

Alright then.

[Clinton Huxley]

The wiki article on "American Imperialism" is interesting, there are as many views on this as there are scholars interested in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism

[Robert_S]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_Builder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building

[laklak]

Mexico is busy inventing new shapes for hardshell tacos.

The lazy Mexicans only managed to come up with soft tortillas, it took Murikan TexMex ingenuity to come up with the hardshell. An annoying invention, good mostly for spilling hot sauce on your T-shirt. Can be tasty, though, if you don't use that horrid Old El Paso taco kit shite. Best with ground goat cooked with habaneros.

That reminds me, time for a trip to the Mexican grocery store. I needs me some goatmeat.

[Cormac]

Whether the U.S. citizenry choose to see it or not, outside the confines of the borders of the States, they are seen as The Empire.

Well, I can't comment on how you view the US, but I would just say that the American people are not the only nation where the people are, shall we say, provincial.... to take your Empire metaphor another step.

I don't get what you mean here? Are you saying there's fuckwits everywhere? Obviously, thats the point I was making. Also I wasn't using Empire as a metaphor I've spoke to people across the globe who genuinely think that. (Oh if you thought I meant Lucas, nah, I mean the preception of behaviour of Empire, rather than sith lords)

well, I think the people who call the US an "empire" are using the term wrongly. But, I think what they really mean is that the US is really really powerful and influential and has a presence and influence all over the globe. Yes, indeed it does.

It is hard to distinguish the US presence around the world from the way in which the Roman Empire used to project power. Rome did not directly rule its subject states. It ruled through client minorities in its subject states usually. Neither was the Roman Army present in every country as an occupational force. Instead, they provided military advice and support to their client rulers, and positioned armies regionally - so they could move to quell unrest in client states.

When we look at how the US supports coups and installs governments (i.e. as per the recent CIA admissions re the deposition of Mossadeq), the current support for the coup in Egypt, and so on and so on, and the provision of military assistance, the regional positioning of military force - by aircraft carrier and at places like the Chagos Islands, and the profits extracted in terms of oil, the US begins to look, sound, and indeed quack like an imperial duck.

[Cormac]

The US has influence, but that influence is almost always subject to consent of the countries at issue. We don't have an empire.

"Almost" is a key word in this sentence.

Just how often does a state have to wield "influence" against the will of various peoples before they're elevated from simple machievellian mercantilists to an Empire?

[Robert_S]

It's kindof invisible to us on the non-pointy end of it.

It's a softer empire, but it is imperial. But then again, you could also look at it as our burden of destiny manifesting itself. 0

[Coito ergo sum]

Whether the U.S. citizenry choose to see it or not, outside the confines of the borders of the States, they are seen as The Empire.

Well, I can't comment on how you view the US, but I would just say that the American people are not the only nation where the people are, shall we say, provincial.... to take your Empire metaphor another step.

I don't get what you mean here? Are you saying there's fuckwits everywhere? Obviously, thats the point I was making. Also I wasn't using Empire as a metaphor I've spoke to people across the globe who genuinely think that. (Oh if you thought I meant Lucas, nah, I mean the preception of behaviour of Empire, rather than sith lords)

well, I think the people who call the US an "empire" are using the term wrongly. But, I think what they really mean is that the US is really really powerful and influential and has a presence and influence all over the globe. Yes, indeed it does.

It is hard to distinguish the US presence around the world from the way in which the Roman Empire used to project power. Rome did not directly rule its subject states. It ruled through client minorities in its subject states usually. Neither was the Roman Army present in every country as an occupational force. Instead, they provided military advice and support to their client rulers, and positioned armies regionally - so they could move to quell unrest in client states.

They conquered all their provinces through force of arms. Gaul, Britain, Iberia, North Africa, the Balkans, Turkey, the Levant, Egypt, etc. They didn't just exert economic influence -- the conquered. Like the Brits, French, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Germans, etc. after them, they went out and took significant properties around the globe.

When we look at how the US supports coups and installs governments (i.e. as per the recent CIA admissions re the deposition of Mossadeq)

Brit, with US assistance, but yes. Discussion of Iran always seems to weirdly remove the UK from the prime role in the middle east at the time. The Brits were all over it from 1917 to the late 1950s. The Brits called it Operation Boot.

Remember in 1941, when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, the British and the Russkies deposed Shah Reza because they claimed he was pro-German, even though he was ostensibly neutral. The Brits and their Commonwealth Nations, like the Ozzies, and the Soviets, invaded Iran in 1941. The Brits and the Russkies installed who? Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (the previous Shah's son) as head of State. That's the same Shah of Iran that was deposed in 1979.

So, who installed the Shah of Iran? The British and the Russians. But, who gets blamed? The US.

So what about the Mossadegh incident? The details are often forgotten in the discussion -- after WW2, the Brits and Commonwealth Countries left Iran. Who stayed? The Soviets. LOL.

In 1949, an opposition party tried to assassinate the Shah. The Shah then became very active in ruling Iran, which pissed off the opposition more, and Mossedegh helped form the National Front to oppose the Shah. The Shah eventually appointed Mossadegh as Prime Minister.

The Shah was in power as Shah in 1953 when there was a coup. He had the power under Iran's constitution to remove Mossadegh, but political pressure kept him from being able to just fire Mossadegh, and the Brits wanted Mossadegh out to prevent nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, because it was the British run oil companies that had all the Iranian oil locked up. The Brits went to the US for help and convinced Secretary of STate Dulles that Iran was going to fall to the Soviets, and Dulles convinced Eisenhower and they directed the CIA to help the brits depose Mossadegh from the Prime Minister position.

However, the whole time the Shah was still the Shah, and was not "installed" by the US. He had been "installed" by the Brits in 1941.

, the current support for the coup in Egypt,

Wait, who is supporting the coup in Egypt now?

.
and so on and so on, and the provision of military assistance, the regional positioning of military force - by aircraft carrier and at places like the Chagos Islands, and the profits extracted in terms of oil, the US begins to look, sound, and indeed quack like an imperial duck.

Well, the Chagos Islands are British possessions.

[Cormac]

Well, I can't comment on how you view the US, but I would just say that the American people are not the only nation where the people are, shall we say, provincial.... to take your Empire metaphor another step.

I don't get what you mean here? Are you saying there's fuckwits everywhere? Obviously, thats the point I was making. Also I wasn't using Empire as a metaphor I've spoke to people across the globe who genuinely think that. (Oh if you thought I meant Lucas, nah, I mean the preception of behaviour of Empire, rather than sith lords)

well, I think the people who call the US an "empire" are using the term wrongly. But, I think what they really mean is that the US is really really powerful and influential and has a presence and influence all over the globe. Yes, indeed it does.

It is hard to distinguish the US presence around the world from the way in which the Roman Empire used to project power. Rome did not directly rule its subject states. It ruled through client minorities in its subject states usually. Neither was the Roman Army present in every country as an occupational force. Instead, they provided military advice and support to their client rulers, and positioned armies regionally - so they could move to quell unrest in client states.

They conquered all their provinces through force of arms. Gaul, Britain, Iberia, North Africa, the Balkans, Turkey, the Levant, Egypt, etc. They didn't just exert economic influence -- the conquered. Like the Brits, French, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Germans, etc. after them, they went out and took significant properties around the globe.

When we look at how the US supports coups and installs governments (i.e. as per the recent CIA admissions re the deposition of Mossadeq)

Brit, with US assistance, but yes. Discussion of Iran always seems to weirdly remove the UK from the prime role in the middle east at the time. The Brits were all over it from 1917 to the late 1950s. The Brits called it Operation Boot.

Remember in 1941, when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, the British and the Russkies deposed Shah Reza because they claimed he was pro-German, even though he was ostensibly neutral. The Brits and their Commonwealth Nations, like the Ozzies, and the Soviets, invaded Iran in 1941. The Brits and the Russkies installed who? Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (the previous Shah's son) as head of State. That's the same Shah of Iran that was deposed in 1979.

So, who installed the Shah of Iran? The British and the Russians. But, who gets blamed? The US.

So what about the Mossadegh incident? The details are often forgotten in the discussion -- after WW2, the Brits and Commonwealth Countries left Iran. Who stayed? The Soviets. LOL.

In 1949, an opposition party tried to assassinate the Shah. The Shah then became very active in ruling Iran, which pissed off the opposition more, and Mossedegh helped form the National Front to oppose the Shah. The Shah eventually appointed Mossadegh as Prime Minister.

The Shah was in power as Shah in 1953 when there was a coup. He had the power under Iran's constitution to remove Mossadegh, but political pressure kept him from being able to just fire Mossadegh, and the Brits wanted Mossadegh out to prevent nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, because it was the British run oil companies that had all the Iranian oil locked up. The Brits went to the US for help and convinced Secretary of STate Dulles that Iran was going to fall to the Soviets, and Dulles convinced Eisenhower and they directed the CIA to help the brits depose Mossadegh from the Prime Minister position.

However, the whole time the Shah was still the Shah, and was not "installed" by the US. He had been "installed" by the Brits in 1941.

, the current support for the coup in Egypt,

Wait, who is supporting the coup in Egypt now?

.
and so on and so on, and the provision of military assistance, the regional positioning of military force - by aircraft carrier and at places like the Chagos Islands, and the profits extracted in terms of oil, the US begins to look, sound, and indeed quack like an imperial duck.

Well, the Chagos Islands are British possessions.

When you're reading my reply - please note that I'm simply responding to your rejection of the idea that the USA can be characterised as an Empire. I am not at all blind to the failings, machievellianism, criminality, and imperial ambitions of other countries - not least of which is the EU (not a country yet), France, Britain (once again), and so on and so on.

I'm simply talking about the US and whether or not it can be characterised as an Empire.

Now - in response:

They didn't conquer ALL their possessions through force of arms, as it happens. Some leaders simply gave themselves to Rome in a kind of "Surrender and Regrant" scenario.

Neither did the Europeans ALWAYS conquer by force of arms. In fact, Egypt and several others were conquered by the British and French because they allowed themselves to be treated like Fois Gras Geese, and they collaborated in their own diet of debt. They took on more and more debt to attempt to modernise and keep up with Europe that they bankrupted themselves - and in waltzed the despicable European Empires.

As regards the Shah and Britain's involvement - I've said that many times on this very forum. Britain was the initiator of that particular coup in order to protect their interest in Gulf Oil - now known as BP (of Deepwater infamy). CIA took over when it was clear that Britain were no longer able to carry off the coup.

Your description of the coup is pretty good - except that the installation of the Shah by the CIA was not the same as the earlier installation. The later installation put him into supreme power, and coincidentally, retained foreign control of Iran's oil.

Right now, (as far as I am aware) the US has not officially recognised the current coup in Egypt as a coup "officially". This is because it would force the US to stop providing assistance to Egypt. So, there is de facto support for the coup in Egypt.

(Incidentally - the EU is similarly avoiding the issue, as are pretty much all EU member states - to their shame).

Edit - oh, and yes, the Chagos Islands are de facto British possessions (although the courts have ruled that Britain cannot legally prevent the return of the Chagos Islanders to their home - a ruling that the British Government is contendedly ignoring - in breach of their own laws). However, Britain is a client state of the USA. Therefore, it often acts to further its joint strategic interests with the USA.

And, incidentally, there is a gigantic US military base on the Chagos Islands, known as Diego Garcia - which is the reason that Britain and the USA is riding roughshod over the rights of the Chagos Islanders.

[Robert_S]

It's all really being run by an Irish cabal.

[Coito ergo sum]

When you're reading my reply - please note that I'm simply responding to your rejection of the idea that the USA can be characterised as an Empire. I am not at all blind to the failings, machievellianism, criminality, and imperial ambitions of other countries - not least of which is the EU (not a country yet), France, Britain (once again), and so on and so on.

I'm simply talking about the US and whether or not it can be characterised as an Empire.

Sure, and you used as an example the American involvement in the Mossadegh incident, which hardly expanded US territory or brought Iran under US hegemony. It brought Iran under British hegemony to protect British interests. The US interest was in preventing it from going Soviet.

Now - in response:

They didn't conquer ALL their possessions through force of arms, as it happens. Some leaders simply gave themselves to Rome in a kind of "Surrender and Regrant" scenario.

Very few -- the Caesar conquered Gaul and claimed to have killed 1,000,000 Gauls. They conquered Iberia from the Carthaginians, and they conquered North Africa from Carthage as well. They conquered the Levant with Roman soldiers. They conquered Egypt militarily and the threat of military force and they conquered the Baltics and Dacia by force. The bulk of the Roman Empire was conquered and held by force of arms.

By contrast, the US has Puerto Rico, which can vote anytime to be its own country. And, we have uninhabited islands, or barely inhabited islands like Guam and the Northern Marianas.

Neither did the Europeans ALWAYS conquer by force of arms.

They did a lot, and enough to be Empires in fact, and they, in fact, called themselves Empires. That was when being an Empire was cool.

In fact, Egypt and several others were conquered by the British and French because they allowed themselves to be treated like Fois Gras Geese, and they collaborated in their own diet of debt. They took on more and more debt to attempt to modernise and keep up with Europe that they bankrupted themselves - and in waltzed the despicable European Empires.

The British fought a war against Egypt in like 1880 which resulted in British control. They did a whole naval bombardment of Alexandria. They didn't leave for 70 years, until the Revolution in Egypt in the 50s. REvolution against British rule....

Even with economic influences, the African countries were held by force of arms, and the Brits set up colonial governments run by Brit governors, like the French and the others. That's empire behavior. Setting up a functioning democracy that doesn't have to listen to the "empire" is not the same thing.

As regards the Shah and Britain's involvement - I've said that many times on this very forum. Britain was the initiator of that particular coup in order to protect their interest in Gulf Oil - now known as BP (of Deepwater infamy). CIA took over when it was clear that Britain were no longer able to carry off the coup.

Your description of the coup is pretty good - except that the installation of the Shah by the CIA was not the same as the earlier installation. The later installation put him into supreme power, and coincidentally, retained foreign control of Iran's oil.

There wasn't an installation of the Shah when Operation Boot/Ajax occcurred in 1953. The Shah was the Shah and Mossadegh was his prime minister. The Shah participated in the coup because the Brits and Merkins twisted his arm, and he was told if he opposed them, then he would go too. The Shah stayed in power as he had been from 1941 on when he was installed to replace his dad.

Right now, (as far as I am aware) the US has not officially recognised the current coup in Egypt as a coup "officially". This is because it would force the US to stop providing assistance to Egypt. So, there is de facto support for the coup in Egypt.

There is, as the OP of the thread relates, a waffley policy on the part of the US. We don't want to withdraw aid, but we don't want to support either side. We're trying to walk a tightrope. I'm sure withdrawal of aid is "tacit" support for something.

(Incidentally - the EU is similarly avoiding the issue, as are pretty much all EU member states - to their shame).

Sure, the Europeans give aid to Egypt and Egypt was riled up when the EU mentioned it might "review" its aid to Egypt.

Edit - oh, and yes, the Chagos Islands are de facto British possessions (although the courts have ruled that Britain cannot legally prevent the return of the Chagos Islanders to their home - a ruling that the British Government is contendedly ignoring - in breach of their own laws). However, Britain is a client state of the USA. Therefore, it often acts to further its joint strategic interests with the USA.

The UK is a "client state" of the US? I've never heard that seriously contemplated. It's a misuse of the term "client state" just as "empire" is being misused. A client state would be like, Egypt after 1922 and Iraq after 1932 -- they remained "client states" of the UK. It's where local rulers and governors are "clients." And, places like Nigeria and Malaya were indirectly ruled by Britain. The closest thing the US would have had to client states would be like Cuba until Castro's revolution or Chile under Pinochet, where the US exerted a lot of influence, but we never had the kind of indirect rule or client rulers that the European countries had.

And, incidentally, there is a gigantic US military base on the Chagos Islands, known as Diego Garcia - which is the reason that Britain and the USA is riding roughshod over the rights of the Chagos Islanders.

What you calla "gigantic US military base" is not called Diego Garcia, it's "on" Diego Garcia, and it is a "joint" military base with the Brits. Mostly Merkin stuff at this point, but it's still a Brit island and if the Brits want the US off, I suppose they can tell us to go. However, it's in the Brit interest that we are there, and it's in the US interest that we are there too. Win win. Except for the Chagossians that were expelled, apparently, although I'm not clear on all the details of the expulsions, apparently a Brit Supreme Court dismissed the Chagossians' case, so that's done.

[Cormac]

It's all really being run by an Irish cabal.

I'll murder you momentarily.

Shhhhhhh!