maverick Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 maybe its time to turn principles on their collective heads. how different would our culture be right now if not for the roman empire and more recently the british empire. there are of course other empires but these two have changed the path of the world and the results have and will resound down the centuries as the consequences occur. rome saught to improve the world and raise it to an ideal. perhaps not the only reason for conquest nut thats what occurred in the end. the british empire was probably more about money and politics but the results have seen an improvement in standards worldwide and while it may have cost nations like india initially, they are cashing in the ticket for the big game which if not for britain they may not have had. if bush is empire building, is it a bad thing. for minor losses, i.e. financial and a few lives, wont the worlds standards improve and become a better place??????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 if bush is empire building' date=' is it a bad thing. for minor losses, i.e. financial and a few lives, wont the worlds standards improve and become a better place???????????[/quote'] It could never happen, not with a huge gaping divide between cultures (which seems to be widening every day). The war in Iraq was "won" very quickly but they are far from being a member of a bush empire, can barely even consider them allies at this stage. I doubt the US will have any more luck in Iran or North Korea or wherever.... we should aim higher for standards of living worldwide, and try to spread free healthcare that many nations currently have, and free higher education. I dont think these sorts of goals can be achieved through war anymore...suprisingly even the US doesnt meet these standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 America isn't building an Empire in any conventional sense. It's simply engaging in very capricious foreign policy that revolves around the protection of its economic interests. A book - also by Niall Ferguson, American Colossus - outlines how the USA has been a considerably destabilising on the world. Clever man, really. He's the historian I'd have been if I wasn't the laziest man in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilander72 Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 I've heard that the US forces are leaving Iraq by the end of 2007... Bush is thinking: Iran it's close... :cyclops: it doesnt really mean anything anyway. the area has been turned over to mercenary companies to keep the peace. thats what they dont say on the news. LATEST JUST IN: the american governmaent today decided to make it look like their being nice to the Iraqi people, by leaving. what they didnt mention is that instead of soldiers tho the american government is hiring mercenaries to keep security while the us government plunders oil supplies to pay the mercenaries. well done the mercenaries and, nice one mr bush you fooled the world again:D Sorry, I haven't been able to read and respond lately... I partly meant it as a joke, but if you think about it in terms of economics and business, there might be some horrible truth in it, then again who can predict the future. :thinking: War has and will always be about wealth and profit. The invasion of Iraq was planned and executed on schedule, but the 3 years of occupation has this far been a huge loss. Since they (Bush & Bush & Friends Inc.) has invested $billions of taxpayer dollars in Iraq and has failed to capitalise, the next step is to increase the stakes (more investment) by "creating" a new war and hopefully it will result in a large enough profit to cover the losses from Iraq. ................................ @ghostshadow If you didn't know it yet... A christian extremist = A muslim extremist And the sadly the World has to many of both. :( I'm an atheist and I'm proud of it. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Hilander... well, you know - it is and it isn't about profit. It's MUCH more about political pay-offs. Just look at the billions being given to American and British companies to rebuild Iraq... and guess what... mysteriously, they didn't really get enough. If you look at the Medieval and Ancient war mentality, it was basically about pillage... but the fact of the matter is war is a costly business these days. You can't go into a village and take their gold. You're sending in professional soldiers, establishing supply lines, etc. For the Bush administration war on Iraq was an excellent way to hand out big ole pay cheques to several of the people they are in the pocket of, while naturally increasing the price of oil only slightly - beneficial if you're outside of OPEC and have money invested in oil. I also agree with that new sig, Hilander. I'd say any religious extremist represents a clear and present danger to fundamental freedoms of secular Western society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maverick Posted March 18, 2006 Author Share Posted March 18, 2006 if bush is empire building' date=' is it a bad thing. for minor losses, i.e. financial and a few lives, wont the worlds standards improve and become a better place???????????[/quote'] It could never happen, not with a huge gaping divide between cultures (which seems to be widening every day). The war in Iraq was "won" very quickly but they are far from being a member of a bush empire, can barely even consider them allies at this stage. I doubt the US will have any more luck in Iran or North Korea or wherever.... we should aim higher for standards of living worldwide, and try to spread free healthcare that many nations currently have, and free higher education. I dont think these sorts of goals can be achieved through war anymore...suprisingly even the US doesnt meet these standards. the u.s. cant build an empire in the traditional style, the u.n. wouldnt like it so the u.s are doing it 'the right way'. politically. if the u.s. want to find evidence they willprobably find it. and this time they've had time to carefully construct the evidence. well done again mr bush. if war makes money it seems pretty likely we're gonna get one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Yes - because the UN is SO influential to the USA's foreign policy. War loses money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maverick Posted March 19, 2006 Author Share Posted March 19, 2006 traditionally it doesnt as the conquerin nation goes in and exploits the resources of the conquered nation. sound familiar?? also, in cases like afghanistan, didnt the american government sell arms to them? ....and many others. war is BIG business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 No - arms dealing is. Going to war is and has been for several decades a venture that inherently devalues the country you're invading, while at the same time you're wasting a lot of money on maintaining and supplying your forces. Unless you're a big fan of Keynesian economics and I'd suggest that by the time Nixon said "we are all Keynesians" it had already been proven to generally produce crippling. Sure, you'll make money by selling arms - but you're not going to get rich invading countries. Oh wait, you're right. The USA got a frakking hit-load of cash from the Korean war and Vietnam... and the first gulf war... etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maverick Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 well perhaps these were necessary conflicts. look at the biiger picture. ....also arms dealing is part of the war business. if you wanna keep makin money you gota keep the world an unstable place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Necessary for who exactly? Arms dealing isn't an inherently destabilising activity. I'm fairly sure if you're supplying the Canadian military, you aren't destabilising the world... not sure if that's true of selling to the USA though ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilander72 Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 No - arms dealing is. Going to war is and has been for several decades a venture that inherently devalues the country you're invading, while at the same time you're wasting a lot of money on maintaining and supplying your forces. Unless you're a big fan of Keynesian economics and I'd suggest that by the time Nixon said "we are all Keynesians" it had already been proven to generally produce crippling. Sure, you'll make money by selling arms - but you're not going to get rich invading countries. Oh wait, you're right. The USA got a frakking hit-load of cash from the Korean war and Vietnam... and the first gulf war... etc. A couple of decades earlier someone said... In his farewell address as president, he warned against the influence of the growing "military-industrial complex". Who knows, maybe they can "create" busines (war). :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyberbob Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Have you read Niall Ferguson's "Empire - How Britain Made The Modern World". If not, we can continue when you've divulged it. Read Guns, Germs, and Steel...add to it 5 other books that cover both sides of the pond and make sure that you take notes on them and then study them. We can continue when you've divulged it. I don't actually expect for you to read it but the point is that I said that I have read many books on world histoy. It is a habit that I have. No book is perfect and no book is completely unbiased. That is why I read things from different sources. I will be sure to pick that one up now that you have shown it to me but do not think that just because I have not read that one book that I have no idea of what I am talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 I've read more than my fair share of books on the British Empire and really, I just don't bother with the majority of them these days. It's all about THE NEW ATROCITIES OF THE EVIL EMPIRE. Niall Ferguson is one of the few people in my experience who has offered anything other than an overwhingly negative view on the subject. As he himself points out - it's just incredibly unpopular to ever tout the virtues of the Empire. I'll get on Guns, Germs and Steel though. I only mention Empire because it's probably better than just about every other book I've read on the subject. If only more of the history books I've had to read over the years had been written so eloquently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now