Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Frumple]

Heh. You're looking at "colony" a little to literally, Sheb. The US is definitely reaping some hella' spoils with its imperialism, it's just not quite as up front as direct colonial taxation or whatever. More of a bending folks over the knee so the corps can violently probe the orifices thing.

[RedKing]

We had/have a different kind of empire. That's why there's dozens of McDonald's in Beijing and not a Hungry Jack's or a Frankie & Benny's. Mercantilism by corporations rather than by government fiat.

Problem is, somewhere along the line things got inverted. You're supposed to extract raw resources from the colonies and sell them finished goods to make your profit. Which is how it all worked for much of the 1950's and 1960's. Then those finished goods started getting made abroad and sold back to us. Cash flow reversed, and created the South Asian tiger nations. South Korea, Taiwan, even Japan....they are what they are today because we bought massive amounts of stuff from them over the last few decades.

[Mephansteras]

I was also the one who commented on the Navy protecting us from Invasion, which it does. Nukes help in that regard as well, of course, but it's still a front-line function of the Navy.

Fortunately, the US is starting to take a bit of a hands-off approach to a lot of areas and letting our allies do most of the work in areas that they care about more than we do. See Libya and Mali in that regard, where US involvement has been much less than previous engagements.

[RedKing]

I was also the one who commented on the Navy protecting us from Invasion, which it does. Nukes help in that regard as well, of course, but it's still a front-line function of the Navy.

Fortunately, the US is starting to take a bit of a hands-off approach to a lot of areas and letting our allies do most of the work in areas that they care about more than we do. See Libya and Mali in that regard, where US involvement has been much less than previous engagements.

I'm still not sure if that's a strategic shift, or just a necessity because we some broke-ass muthafuckas. Eleven-plus years of war will do that to a country.

Besides, if it involves putting boots on the ground in Africa, we're generally not real keen on that. North Korea would be a different story though. We already have boots in the area, and if shit went hot, you can bet we'd be involved on the ground, even if it's just to man the DMZ and stem the tide till reinforcements arrive and/or Pyongyang is renamed whatever "Smoking Crater" is in Korean.

[PyroDesu]

We already have boots in the area, and if shit went hot, you can bet we'd be involved on the ground, even if it's just to man the DMZ and stem the tide till reinforcements arrive and/or Pyongyang is renamed whatever "Smoking Crater" is in Korean.

All hail the Glorius leader's palace in the city of Heub-yeon Bunhwagu (흡연 분화구)!

[misko27]

America and the EU are considering a Free Trade agreement. Coming in 2014 maybe.
 
I only just found this out?

[Sheb]

Because it is a well-known, historical fact that Beijing's McDonalds were airdropped from the US 7th fleet. It's not the 19th century anymore when British gunboats could force the Chinese to buy opium. Your army has little to do with commercial benefits.

[SalmonGod]

Your army has little to do with commercial benefits.

Cold War

[10ebbor10]

Your army has little to do with commercial benefits.

Cold War

Commercial interest in CHina and others are from after the Cold war though.

[Sheb]

And even during the Cold War it was usually less invasion and more "let's find some nice fascist we can arm for a coup".

[PanH]

And even during the Cold War it was usually less invasion and more "let's find some nice fascist we can arm for a coup".

Pretty much everyone that said they would fight against communism. It kinda backfired.

[MonkeyHead]

And even during the Cold War it was usually less invasion and more "let's find some nice fascist we can arm for a coup".

Pretty much everyone that said they would fight against communism. It kinda backfired.

"Whats that Mr CIA? If I fight the "dirty red commies" you will give me weapons and intel for free? How much and give it to me!"

[SalmonGod]

Missing the point.  Capitalism won.  Most importantly, capitalism piloted by the hands of U.S. businessmen.  Sure, it wasn't traditional military conflict.  There's a reason much of it is referred to as The Dirty War.  But it was still violent, and China has McDonalds today because capitalism won.  That's the nature of our empire.

[Sheb]

My point was not that the US don't enjoy economic dominance, neither that that economic dominance wasn't asserted by violent means at time, just that the US military played a small part in it and that it could be shrunk by half without diminishing the US too much.

[SalmonGod]

My point was not that the US don't enjoy economic dominance, neither that that economic dominance wasn't asserted by violent means at time, just that the US military played a small part in it and that it could be shrunk by half without diminishing the US too much.

The military played a large part in it, just not always a direct one.  Today, though, I'd agree with you, if for no other reason than I don't really care about the U.S. maintaining dominance.  It bothers me to no end that a fraction of the effort put into creating tools of death could easily make the world a much, much better place to live in, which would have the side effect of drastically reducing the necessity for those tools of death.