the American empire

[rambling man]

this is for an answer to a question p.p. man had last Friday that's buried in a thread way far back

The Alamo had nothign to do with conquest, but was a battle in the Texan War of Independence. We later annexed the country peacefully and its disputed borders led to the Mexican War from which we got the Southwest.

We extorted Florida and southern Mississippi and Alabama from Spain

We used threats to overcome the agreement of the Joint occupation of Oregon, although the end result was fair

We used similar threats to get the boundary of Alaska we wanted, although a Britisher on the deciding commission voted in the US favor...primarily because Teddy Roosevelt said if he didn't like the commission's findings, he'd use the US Army to draw the border.

We conquered the Phillipines, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc from Spain.


On the other hand, we conquered our entire country from Alleghenies to the Pacific from the indigenous inhabitants in a century long series of small but vicious wars

And if anyone wants to chime in and condemn the US for these actions, think of these facts..
The US never did anything to a Great Power that Great Powers did not do to each other in the 1800s.
The US did not do anythign to Indian tribes that those Indian tribes had not been doing to each other for centuries before Columbus even landed...the Aztec Empire was comparable to the Nazis for its brutality and the Cherokees and Iroquois practiced what we would call large scale "ethnic cleansing"

 

[Markov Cain]

True, true, true.
Especially the part about the Indians, you forgot the Lacota Souix and the slave-owning "Civilized Nations."
The last time I pointed that out, I made all sorts of new enemies.

 

[rambling man]

one of the tribes the Cherokee tried to exterminate was a "white" tribe in Alabama.....This was from James Mooney's compilation on Cherokee stories

The "white" tribe was later found in Missouri by Englishmen who were shocked to find them speaking a form of Welsh....historians have guessed that these were the descendants of a band of Welsh led to a new land in the 11 or 1200s. He went there, came back and recruited more Welsh to return with him, then left again to never be seen again...his name was Prince Madog....some architectural remains have been found that seem to suggest recreations of Welsh style castles..

So the Vikings, then the Welsh cam to America before Columbus...

 

[WriterDom]

We conquered the moon.

 

[rambling man]

Yes, but then Jimmy Carter signed it over to Morocco

 

[Markov Cain]

The Welsh were probably running from the English.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Manifest Destiny. What a concept. After the Revolutionary War it was known that for the new Republic to survive it must have control of the Continent from ocean to ocean, so it became our "God Given Destiny" to expand west, damn everyone. Is that Imperialism?

Well, yeah. Not like Eurpopean Imperialism, which was to conquer a country and set up an occupational government. American imperialism was about conquering a land (there were no "countries", not on the Continent, not in the accepted sense), colonizing it, and allowing it to become a state with equal liberties and powers to the rest of the union.

It's easy to look backwards with contemporary eyes and sniff "Imperialism", forgetting that it was an accepted and legitate policy of defense and containment used by nations since the beginning of recorded history.

And it's eay to to forget that if Americans truly wanted to committ all resources to world dominationn through imperialism we'd have a few more states in the union, and their names would be France, Germany, Russia, Vietnam, Iraq and (probably) Mexico. Not until the World Wars did anyone conquer a country, and then walk away, leaving the government (for the most part) intact, and THEN develop plans for its re-building.

Americans are not Imperialists. Unless you count how many fucking McDonald's we put in your country. (And, you know, you don't HAVE to eat there -- which is something I try to tell myself every day.)

Oh boy, this is a big subject, full of exceptions and historical abberations and atrocities. The whole truth is somewhat larger than I'm stating it. Americans bad. Americans good. I think the point is that, like most nations, and somewhat more than many nations, America has never been "what was" or even "what is", but "what it will be tomorrow". The system is designed to evolve.

Any guesses to what America will look like in 100 years? Think we'll be more isolationistic, or finally give in to our baser patriotic impulses and assume the mantle of "policeman of the world"? It would be interesting to know.

 

[Closet Desire]

Of course...

...you shouldn't forget that if you want to "have it your way" it was the British who parked (and own) the Burger Kings in the US.

 

[shadowsource]

Cuba!

Starting with the slavery supporters' cravings to conquer Cuba and add it as a slave state, our view and treatment of Cuba has been nothing less than imperialist. When we seized it from Spain (in the midst of a colonial revolution against the Spanish, just as in the Philippines), Washington imposed terrible political and economic restrictions on Cuba (Platte Amendment, among others). This has continued for another century, and here we are, debating whether we can legally travel there; holding Olympics in China, but boycotting Cuba; encouraging US based fanatics to fly over and harass a neighboring nation, etc. The upshot: They wind up selling "socialist" teenage girls to our more adventuresome, middle-aged male tourists. We sneer, they sneer, everyone sucks. But it's unquestionably imperialism.

 

[rambling man]

Americans from back to the Kennedy years have a hard spot in their hearts for Cuba. Neither Robert nor John would have shed a tear over a Castro untimely death.

To put it bluntly, many countries have a certain "sphere of influence" even today. China maintains its right to Tibet, which actually goes beyond the concept of sphere of influence, but they also have North Korea. Russia still maintains a large sphere of influence over nations west and south of it. The United States has always considered the Caribbean its own area. Japan has historically been wary of unfriendly control over the southern part of Korea and Okinawa.

A sphere of influence is an area where a Great Power claims, or is understood to have a special influence. Cuba is a thorn in our sphere and has hundreds of thousands of politically active ex-patriates who remind us over and over of Castro.

If life in the great socialist workers paradise of Cuba was so wonderful, then why do people float 90 miles across the ocean in inner tubes to escape it.

I agree that needling Cuba these days is pointless as they are no threat. The best way to get rid of Castro is to pour as much business into Cuba as possible, flood it with Radissons and Holiday Inns and American tourists. Cuba will then jettison Castro and Communism.

I think that when the ex-patriates retuern to Cuba and take it over, it will either become a state or establish itself as a quasi American protectorate

 

[Closet Desire]

What about...

...the millions who aren't floating over in inner tubes to Florida? Cubans are like people the world over. Most love their country whether you understand it or not. They love their culture (and it is a rich one). They have jobs. They get educations. They fall in love and raise families. They are people.

I didn't float over to England in an inner tube because I didn't have to be smuggled or worry about immigration nor did I leave America because I dislike it. People have lots of reasons for wanting to leave a country...or stay.

America's paranoia of communism has been unhealthy not only for other countries but for America as well.

 

[sexy-girl]

i watched a programme called military blunders one of the things they discussed was when america invaded grenada ... i only mention it because it hasnt been mentioned in this thread


on another note the "british empire" has done probably worse then the the "american empire" in history ... however maybe the americans have made worse mistakes in recent history



on what DCL was sayingi would like to say too about the isolationistic road americans are maybe heading down with the growing power of europe perhaps america wont be the policemen of the world it might be europe that will have the bigger influence


i personally would prefer if it was a middle ground between the two

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

How was Grenada a military "blunder"? A political blunder, maybe, but how did the armed forces fuck up?

And my point above was skirting around this: If you're going to wonder the "which country was worse?" question, you have to define your terms. You have to first ask questions like "What era are we looking at?" because things like "Imperialism" and "War" and "Conquer" were defined (and moralized) quite differently in past centuries. It would be pointless to say things like "America is a bigger imperialist than England because in 1875 America did this and in 1210 Englad did that blah, blah, blah." It's also pointless to say a country is imperialist now because of the policies that helped define it. You cannot deny the imperialist background, surely, but you also cannot allow for a centuries old policy to be the only factor in determining a country's contemporary moral standing.

 

[sexy-girl]

sorry i was mentioning about british past blunders and such so people wouldnt think i was being anti american


the programme i watched described how the american navy was using maps from 1905 and out of date road maps from an esso road map ... because of this they bombed a hospital killing 17 innocents ... and there was the fact they didnt know where the students were on the island ... also they thought the british diplomat was being held in prison (he wasnt) some american service men died as they jumped into the water from the transport ships they drowned because they didnt know how strong the currents were


i know alot of this was because of the political preasure being put on the operation forcing it to go ahead without proper planing ... my point is though that politicians shouldnt interefere rather then to say the american forces were incompetant

 

[Closet Desire]

Grenada...

...was a military blunder for lots of reasons.

The first clue? When military personnel began using calling cards and pay phones to contact their bases in the US because the radios they had been issued worked only with their respective branches. This was a well documented folly which was corrected in the years that followed, but it was a serious problem at the time. (Yes, I was in the office taking some of those calls at Norfolk Naval Station).

There was also a matter of several UDT SEAL teams who were screwed by lack of support later attributed to ineffective leadership by their superiors and inter-branch problems. They were unable to get ashore and had been prepped for a night assault, but did not begin their assault until several hours until after daybreak.

Rangers got fucked over pretty well too. They were given no time to prepare for the "invasion" and once in the air were forced to rerig and repack equipment several times. The pilot of one of the C130s was unsure if he could find the landing field and had only thirty minutes of fuel with twenty minutes left to destination.

A quick search on the web will pull up horror story after horror story. All in all I think it's what folks on the front lines like to call a "cluster fuck" and it's hard to blame anyone but the upper echelons for this one.

Here's one such link: http://www.public.usit.net/dmgann/hisrang8.htm

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Really? Interesting. I didn't know that much about Grenada. Glad I asked. Sure glad we got our shit together before Desert Storm.

 

[Closet Desire]

They...

...definitely got a few things figured out in the years that followed BUT remember, Desert Storm was almost a classic military invasion led by someone who had spent his life studying the exploits of Rommel (sp?). Grenada held lots of suprises in its tropical splendor that eluded intelligence and surveillance operations.

I seem to recall that the US invaded Grenada in 1812 as well?

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Yeah, but we thought it was Rhode Island. Maps have improved.

 

[rambling man]

It was a blunder of the high command but a success of the men. Army Rangers performed a task they were not designed for, that is, engage the main force of the enemy. They did so because the support they had to have never arrived.
The air support also mistakenly bombed an army headquarters.

The problem in Grenada was that each service wanted a piece of the action, but none of the services were equipped to function with the others. They didn't use the same radio frequencies, etc. If, for example. they had just sent the Marine Corps, there would have been, perhaps, next to flawless execution.

Grenada was like a pre-season game where the military got its bugs worked out before the Persian Gulf.

However, this ignores the fact that the US military accomplished something beneficial, the removal of a usurping and murderous regime which had killed the popular (if Communist) Prime Minister. What had happened was that the regime destroyed by the US was a Soviet vassal group that had destroyed a more nationalist pro-Cuban but anti-Moscow government. The result of the coup would have been to turn Grenada into a Soviet satellite in a manner far more subservient than Castro.

The community of Caribbean nations had also requested the US do this, it was not unilateral. On the other hand, the British were not really consulted about the invasion of a nation still regarding Queen Elizabeth II as a head of state. The governor general signed a post dated request for intervention. It did ruffle the feathers of Thatcher somewhat, she was reported to have spoken fairly angrily to Reagan in a phone call, but I'd say they patched it up

 

[Closet Desire]

I agree...

...that the men in the field performed honourable...being shot at sometimes has that effect. It was definitely bumbling at the highest levels.

It's also true that Grenada was technically a part of the British Commonwealth.

The thing that bothers me is that the excuse for the invasion was to "rescue" US students at a university. The real reason was exactly as you stated...to interfere in the internal politics of a Carribean Nation and replace the government with one more "friendly" to US ideals.

I sort of have an ethical/moral dilemma with that. Let's see...it's "bad" when the Soviets/Chinese/North Koreans/Iraqis/et. al. do that and "good" when the US does it?

The US has dabbled in the politics of nearly every developing or underdeveloped country (particularly in Latin and South America) and almost always with disastrous long term results. Sometimes leaders have very short term vision and make plans based on those decisions that turn sour.

The US supported the Shah of Iran because he was friendly enough to allow US surveillance of Soviet missile tests over Turkey. These same bright stars in the CIA were so oblivious to what was actually taking place in the country that they were actually trapped in their posts when the revolution began. The Iranians haven't been friendly since and, I would argue, in the long run the US paid a high price for a few years of cooperation. I'm not sure it was worth it.

 

[Myrrdin]

Sure glad we got our shit together before Desert Storm.

It's probably not a fact that's widely known in the US. But during "Desert Storm", American forces killed more British soldiers/airmen etc than the Iraqi's did.

 

[Laurel]

I remember my dad telling me how not too long ago, the sun never set on the British Empire. Just because the U.S. is big & important right now doesn't mean that has to be true forever. The attitude that we're SO cool that we don't NEED to deal with other nations is scary stuff. The American Empire could very well go the way of the British Empire, if we get too vain and stupid.

 

[sexy-girl]

i think most people would still considor grenada a military and politcal blunder that ... i felt so sorry for some of the grenadians talking about it still today saying there just alittle island who got invaded by a superpower ... having said that though i wouldnt blame the actually american servicemen who were just doing what they were told


one of the "reasons" for the attack on grenada was because of the runway being built there which was surposed to have been paid for by cuba ... however it turned out that the british goverment had put more money into the runway then the cuban's had

It's also true that Grenada was technically a part of the British Commonwealth

hehe i liked that quote ... im not sure what mean by technically your either apart of the british commonwealth or your not ... its still a very big deal the commonwealth ... not just a traditions thing

i really do agree with Laurel too america is in an amazing position at the moment to influence the world ... but they can never dictate to the world ... as they will find out if most of the rest of the world furfills the kyoto agreement ... we can still do things without america

 

[Markov Cain]

We lead by example and that is our best role, however, I would like to line the Marines up at the Guatanamo Bay fence, offer a bounty on the madman's head and whoa, hey, who let dem dogs out. URRAH!

 

[p_p_man]

Re: I agree...

[BIt's also true that Grenada was technically a part of the British Commonwealth.[/B]

I'm not sure why you think it was "technically" a part of the British Commonwealth.

It was and still is a member of the Commonwealth with Elizabeth II as Head of State.

The following is just a quick copy from the US State Depts Information on the island.

"Grenada is a member of the Caribbean Development Bank, CARICOM, the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), and the Commonwealth of Nations."

That's why the invasion angered so many people in Britain. We saw it as America throwing its weight around against a friendly nation (the UK).

Boy were we pissed!