The US Empire doesn’t care who is president

L

Lime

Member
The Outline had a good article on the ways that the US as an imperial nation still goes on regardless of who is president. It highlights the military status quo and how empires like the US continues to fulfill its current purpose. It especially deals with the notion that the pain and misery caused by the United States (domestically and internationally) does not end with Donald Trump stopping as president. A highly recommended read:

But even beyond them, in the radical fringes of the far-left and the ur-right that want more than a well-oiled machine, there is a belief that things could be some other way — that the right president, the right Congress, the right election could put an end to the destructive potential of the U.S. from the inside, and that we could do it alone, and voluntarily, if only we got our priorities straight. But we can’t. This machine isn’t built that way.

The trouble with empires is that so much depends upon their emperors, and the trouble for emperors is how little they matter to their empires. No Caesar could end Rome by accident, no matter how myopic or incompetent they could be. Not the madman Caligula, not the idiot Commodus, not the vainglorious Maximinus Thrax — the border might wax or wane, but it made no difference really. Even Caracella, who sacked his own city of Alexandria for staging a funny play at his expense, couldn't ruin the whole empire. The empire just stabbed him in the back and carried on.
Click to expand...

I do not know if Trump ever intended anything but the ordinary course of imperial violence, if there was ever any chance he would attempt to confirm the worst fears of his established critics and put an end to this experiment. I doubt it. But I do know that no matter his intentions, he was incapable, always incapable, of any course but the one laid out for every president. Violence is not a choice for an American emperor; it is a job requirement.
Click to expand...

Americans, for the most part, scarcely comprehend how much depravity is committed in their name. They do not know, or perhaps do not care to know, that the U.S. maintains nearly 300,000 active military personnel in more than 150 nations other than our own. They do not know or care to know that we operate more than 800 military bases around the globe, more than 90 percent of all military bases maintained by any nation anywhere beyond their own borders. They do not know or do not care to know that since the atomic horror that we inflicted on Japan resulted in the establishment of the U.S. as the indisputable hegemony of the entire Earth, we have been responsible for the deaths of three million people in Korea, of three million people in Vietnam, of two million people in Laos and Cambodia, of a million people in Iraq, and that these figures do not even include the deaths, themselves reaching into the tens of millions, that we have caused through sanctions and through coups and through the genocides we permitted and encouraged in the name of anti-communism. These figures do not include the savagery inflicted here at home, through deprivation and poverty, and the repressive violence of the police state.
Click to expand...

The great tragedy and the great farce of contemporary life is that anyone elected to the presidency of the United States will be the greatest hawk the world has ever seen. “I’m really good at killing people,” President Obama joked near the end of his first term. But there’s no real talent to it. Any president can drop 25,000 bombs per year, just like Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama did. Just nod at the generals, and sign your name where they tell you. You’d better. Emperors don’t control their empires, not really, but if we don’t keep the world at bay, there won’t be an American Empire left to rule the world at all.

[...]

For that, we need a movement of the whole world, one that cannot worry whether or not some president is fit to rule, whether or not our secret police are besting our idiot king, whether or not, when all of it is settled, those of us accidentally born under the dubious protection of our military get to keep the comforts we’re accustomed to.
Click to expand...

Read the rest here: https://theoutline.com/post/2203/the-empire-doesn-t-care-who-is-president
 
I think Obama presidency should have shown the world this. Maybe the USA hasn't done a nation scale invasion in a while but the drone and airstrikes are still there..
 
Guevara said:
I think the Obama years, and possibly the Trump years, are more "reluctant empire".
Click to expand...

We're still occupying several countries. We're still backing rebels. We're still droneing people.

Reluctant my ass. The government, the military, the defense contractors, and a lot of the people love what were doing.
 
I'll agree that the US has gotten itself involved in a lot of needless conflicts/atrocities in the past 70 years. However, also using the amount of active service members and military bases to further your argument of US imperialism is a shaky argument in my opinion. It's like these guys have never heard of the concept of Pax Americana.
 
Interesting article, pushes for socialism at the end there, and some kind of revolution maybe? Only problem is that if it's not the American empire the world is under then it's another, and who knows what the other entails.
 
The article is making the assumption that reality without American hegemony would be some peaches and cream land of milk and honey where everyone is joining hands and dancing together in mutual respect and understanding.


No, American hegemony is the best of a lot of bad options.

And we can't speculate what life would be like without that but I'm pretty sure letting land grabbing China or Russia dictate the rules, then articles like that wouldn't be allowed to exist in the first place, author included.
 
Beartruck said:
I'll agree that the US has gotten itself involved in a lot of needless conflicts/atrocities in the past 70 years. However, also using the amount of active service members and military bases to further your argument of US imperialism is a shaky argument in my opinion. It's like these guys have never heard of the concept of Pax Americana.
Click to expand...

"It totally isn't an empire, look at this concept we took from the Roman empire!"
 
Arklite said:
Interesting article, pushes for socialism at the end there, and some kind of revolution maybe? Only problem is that if it's not the American empire the world is under then it's another, and who knows what the other entails.
Click to expand...

Said it better than I could. Yes, the US can be terrible, but could you imagine Russia or China in the same situation? There wouldn't even be the pretense of "peace keeping operations".

Khoryos said:
"It totally isn't an empire, look at this concept we took from the Roman empire!"
Click to expand...

Do we own all the countries we have military bases in? Compared to every other empire in history we sure have one hell of a feather touch.
 
Arklite said:
Interesting article, pushes for socialism at the end there, and some kind of revolution maybe? Only problem is that if it's not the American empire the world is under then it's another, and who knows what the other entails.
Click to expand...

Herr Schwarz said:
The article is making the assumption that reality without American hegemony would be some peaches and cream land of milk and honey where everyone is joining hands and dancing together in mutual respect and understanding.


No, American hegemony is the best of a lot of bad options.

And we can't speculate what life would be like without that but I'm pretty sure letting land grabbing China or Russia dictate the rules, then articles like that wouldn't be allowed to exist in the first place, author included.
Click to expand...

I don't think the people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the bunch of other countries who are getting murdered by drones are fine with this explanation that things would be worse when they already have it pretty terrible because of US and European military actions. They would take anything else but US empire at the moment.

This kind of 'burden of the Empire' and 'the theoretically least Evil Empire' is not an excuse to commit the atrocities that the US does.
 
Herr Schwarz said:
The article is making the assumption that reality without American hegemony would be some peaches and cream land of milk and honey where everyone is joining hands and dancing together in mutual respect and understanding.


No, American hegemony is the best of a lot of bad options.

And we can't speculate what life would be like without that but I'm pretty sure letting land grabbing China or Russia dictate the rules, then articles like that wouldn't be allowed to exist in the first place, author included.
Click to expand...
I agree that America is - at least for us in the West - the best empire to have around at the moment. The alternatives with Russia or China are scary to say the least.

But the article doesn't say the world would be better without America in charge. "[..] any better world we speak of, is one where there is no president and no empire at all." This part at the end speaks about all nations.

JaggedSac said:
China and India will be the world leaders in a century or so.
Click to expand...
Could be. Depends on how they develop. For example, China and India will have a lot more difficulty to spread their cultural influence around. America has a lot of soft power. It remains to be seen if India or China, even if they eclipse the US in terms of economy, can match that.
 
I love how the most insane part of MGS2, the Patriots being some sort of super-consciousness that lives in the fulcrum of American political power is 100% true.
 
Guevara said:
I think the Obama years, and possibly the Trump years, are more "reluctant empire".
Click to expand...

I actually wrote my thesis on the concept of America as an "accidental empire." Even in 1900, after the Spanish-American War, all of our rhetoric was that the US doesn't want to be involved in the outside world, that we'll leave quickly, that we should put America First and only intervene when necessary. But somehow we just kept doing it. Almost like those arguments are lies - maybe lies the people in power are telling the public. Maybe lies they're telling themselves.

American Imperialism is different rhetorically than European Imperialism. We're less a conqueror and more an abusive spouse - "Why are you making me do this to you?"

Hell, you can see that in this thread already - "Someone's gotta keep law and order here! Not my fault you kids keep getting out of line... you're lucky you don't live with Mr. Smith, he uses a belt!"
 
entremet said:
This has been Noam Chomsky's argument for decades now.
Click to expand...

Yet people unfortunately forget or haven't encountered the point of the article. I bet people will think everything will be roses and peaches once/if Trump is out of office.

jph139 said:
I actually wrote my thesis on the concept of America as an "accidental empire." Even in 1900, after the Spanish-American War, all of our rhetoric was that the US doesn't want to be involved in the outside world, that we'll leave quickly, that we should put America First and only intervene when necessary. But somehow we just kept doing it. Almost like those arguments are lies - maybe lies the people in power are telling the public. Maybe lies they're telling themselves.

American Imperialism is different rhetorically than European Imperialism. We're less a conqueror and more an abusive spouse - "Why are you making me do this to you?"

Hell, you can see that in this thread already - "Someone's gotta keep law and order here! Not my fault you kids keep getting out of line... you're lucky you don't live with Mr. Smith, he uses a belt!"
Click to expand...

Exactly. https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/878052372525731840
 
Who are The Patriots? La-li-lu-le-lo...

Seriously though, this stuff is the result of really crappy people and not AI like in MGS2 but this article sounds like it's just basically describing the story of MGS2. It's scary...
 
Nothing will change until people realize they're destroying themselves with this eternal conflict of death and destruction.

The cure for cancer could have been held within some child killed in Iraq or the unborn descendants of people killed in Afghanistan.

When you need help in life, look no further than the own destruction you helped create. American military spends trillions, yet the government can't help your brother get rehab or provide your sister with one more cop to protect her from a rapist out on the streets.

Everything in life is interconnected and the American government uses its freedom in brash ways without ever thinking of the consequences.

You can dress the New York Giants players in Dallas Cowboys uniforms and the Dallas fans would cheer for the New York Giants. We're nowhere close to MLKs dream of being judged on character...everyone is still so tribal. The American people are far too dumb to understand this concept.

Through the power of reincarnation, you might just find yourself on the other side of the conflict. Perspective is key and if there is some almighty power, it will make sure you see it, if not in this life then surely the next.
 
jph139 said:
I actually wrote my thesis on the concept of America as an "accidental empire." Even in 1900, after the Spanish-American War, all of our rhetoric was that the US doesn't want to be involved in the outside world, that we'll leave quickly, that we should put America First and only intervene when necessary. But somehow we just kept doing it. Almost like those arguments are lies - maybe lies the people in power are telling the public. Maybe lies they're telling themselves.

American Imperialism is different rhetorically than European Imperialism. We're less a conqueror and more an abusive spouse - "Why are you making me do this to you?"

Hell, you can see that in this thread already - "Someone's gotta keep law and order here! Not my fault you kids keep getting out of line... you're lucky you don't live with Mr. Smith, he uses a belt!"
Click to expand...
PM me your thesis I'd like to read it.
 
ErasureAcer said:
Nothing will change until people realize they're destroying themselves with this eternal conflict of death and destruction.

The cure for cancer could have been held within some child killed in Iraq or the unborn descendants of people killed in Afghanistan.

When you need help in life, look no further than the own destruction you helped create. American military spends trillions, yet the government can't help your brother get rehab or provide your sister with one more cop to protect her from a rapist out on the streets.
Click to expand...
what the fuck
 
Beartruck said:
I'll agree that the US has gotten itself involved in a lot of needless conflicts/atrocities in the past 70 years. However, also using the amount of active service members and military bases to further your argument of US imperialism is a shaky argument in my opinion. It's like these guys have never heard of the concept of Pax Americana.
Click to expand...

Pax Americana is mentioned in the very first paragraph.
 
ErasureAcer said:
You can dress the New York Giants players in Dallas Cowboys uniforms and the Dallas fans would cheer for the New York Giants. We're nowhere close to MLKs dream of being judged on character...everyone is still so tribal. The American people are far too dumb to understand this concept.
Click to expand...

Right, it's the american people who are dumb in this way and not, you know, every living thing that has ever existed. My cat doesn't trust anyone who is not immediate family, and I'm sure you've had a dog that barked at strangers.

makingmusic476 said:
Pax Americana is mentioned in the very first paragraph.
Click to expand...

They bring it up and dismiss it within the same sentence. I'd hardly call that an argument.
 
I read the entire thing, other than the focus on Trump, which I suppose is the title and focus of the article, there's not particularly anything I haven't heard before.

I personally take an ideological primary realism secondary view. The author's suggestion is insane because if the U.S. backs off China will be over everyone. Look at how they act in the China seas.
 
Guevara said:
I think the Obama years, and possibly the Trump years, are more "reluctant empire".
Click to expand...

You forget the ammount of hate Obama got for wanting to close Gitmo?
He was a traitor to the CIA

Now Trump is traitor to CIA and FBI

People out there want shadows running USA. Is no reluctance
 
Kthulhu said:
If China keeps restricting it's internet then they certainly won't be.
Click to expand...

The scary part about China is their policy of ethnic cleansing. Look at Tibet and how the government has pushed to marginalize not only the culture but the ethnic makeup of the state. Same with regions where the native Muslim populations are.


For the OP it's silly to ignore that under American hegemony the world has seen less conflict, less people have been hurt and killed by conflict thanks largely to the network of alliances and diplomacy enacted by the US. We have no industrial nations go to war with each other (outright declarations) and since the fall of the Soviet Union, nations going to war is a rarity.
 
What a dumb article. Not only is there nothing of substance in it, all it is, is a thinkpeice opinion. They cite nothing and proceed to simply complain about everything. OP exactly what were you trying to accomplish with posting this? Start a conversation maybe? A discussion on how America is everywhere at once? That's how the world is, and that's how the world will be. Should it be that way? I'm not sure, personally I think the US and UN have tried to regime-change too often. With too many lives thrown away, and the country itself in ruin. I am not sure if that is what the article is getting at, but I am somewhat doubtful. All it seems to mention is that America has troops all over the world and that's a problem because people proceed to die as a result. However if you take away the American troops aspect, these people will still die (There was no need for Iraqi's to die, let me clarify that). There will still be crises that requires intervention, possibly via the use of soldiers, but it should be done through the proper protocol (United Nations), and not simply the whims of America. If that's what the article was trying to get at, it does a poor job and needed to focus less on the fact that Donald Trump is president and more on his predecessors.
 
I definitely agree with the thesis, but at the same time... I'm not sure what the point is. The article is right that American hegemony involves a lot of Shit Blowing Up, and that for any one person that seems unchangeable, but the criticism feels toothless when it's robbed of context and conclusion. Like, comparing this

They do not know, or perhaps do not care to know, that the U.S. maintains nearly 300,000 active military personnel in more than 150 nations other than our own. They do not know or care to know that we operate more than 800 military bases around the globe, more than 90 percent of all military bases maintained by any nation anywhere beyond their own borders.
Click to expand...

to classic Imperial expansionism misses the point, and the reason why a President cannot so easily change the course; most of those people aren't having US military presence forced on them. And then it advocates for a world without empires entirely which is great but uh, doesn't seem the way things are going. To put it mildly. We're definitely seeing the fall of America as the singular superpower (which, btw, is what most people were saying Trump would cause, and he does seem to be speeding things up quite a bit), but gaining new challengers is pretty far from the death of empires. To couch the US as morally equivalent and similarly politically functional to a classic Empire does strike me as a failure to consider the longer-term view.

makingmusic476 said:
Pax Americana is mentioned in the very first paragraph.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but in a wholly dismissal and ironic fashion.
 
Beartruck said:
Right, it's the american people who are dumb in this way and not, you know, every living thing that has ever existed. My cat doesn't trust anyone who is not immediate family, and I'm sure you've had a dog that barked at strangers.
Click to expand...

So your premise is everything lives in fear. Thus, the world should not be pissed off at the American Military Industrial Complex because it's only natural. We should all just carry on.
 
Surprised to see such an article published today. I didn't think Americans had the required levels of self awareness for introspection on 9/11.
Edit: published a week ago. Still, surprisingly close.
 
WaffleTaco said:
What a dumb article. Not only is there nothing of substance in it, all it is, is a thinkpeice opinion. They cite nothing and proceed to simply complain about everything. OP exactly what were you trying to accomplish with posting this? Start a conversation maybe? A discussion on how America is everywhere at once? That's how the world is, and that's how the world will be. Should it be that way? I'm not sure, personally I think the US and UN have tried to regime-change too often. With too many lives thrown away, and the country itself in ruin. I am not sure if that is what the article is getting at, but I am somewhat doubtful. All it seems to mention is that America has troops all over the world and that's a problem because people proceed to die as a result. However if you take away the American troops aspect, these people will still die (There was no need for Iraqi's to die, let me clarify that). There will still be crises that requires intervention, possibly via the use of soldiers, but it should be done through the proper protocol (United Nations), and not simply the whims of America. If that's what the article was trying to get at, it does a poor job and needed to focus less on the fact that Donald Trump is president and more on his predecessors.
Click to expand...

Both the OP and the article are agitating for socialist/communist revolution, so you're thinking too deeply into their motivations.
 
It's a bit weird to fixate on the powerlessness of the US president to change things when the fact is, the US president could very easily change things if he campaigned and won on that platform. The blame for the bad behaviour of the US abroad lies squarely at the feet of the US people, who continue to vote for the same old ideas.

Also, don't try to say that the two party system limits peoples' choices. If people really cared about changing things, it wouldn't take long for a suitable candidate to rise up through the system.

Finally, it is the lamest excuse to say that the world would be worse if Russia or China were in charge. Of course it would be. That's no reason for the US to continue to be so shitty.
 
I was hoping for some Space Moor shit thanks to the title, disappointed it's actually a serious discussion on U.S. foreign policy.

On the topic at hand, while the American 'empire' may continue as usual, the president in office is certainly a relevant part of how it operates, as they determine which theatres are important at a given time, with different presidents having different priorities about where American military might should be best projected.
 
Interesting article.
nitpicking I know, but Napoleon really isn't a good example of that type of emperor. The empire was literally named after him and lived/died on his decisions.
 
The indomitable strength and hegemony of the United States Navy is the single biggest reason for our interconnected global economy, which has deepened ties across the world, thus leading to a more stable international environment, enabled the fast and easy shipment of resources, including food and oil to allow countries to feed and flourish, etc. etc.

But such facts have been preemptively dismissed as a "defense force".

It's threads like these where I realize just how extreme elements or this board are.
Quixzlizx said:
Both the OP and the article are agitating for socialist/communist revolution, so you're thinking too deeply into their motivations.
Click to expand...
...and stuck in sophomore year of college,
 
ErasureAcer said:
So your premise is everything lives in fear. Thus, the world should not be pissed off at the American Military Industrial Complex because it's only natural. We should all just carry on.
Click to expand...

As to point 1, yes. As for point 2, no, it's not natural and there is room for improvement, but until a species fundamentally different from our own occupies the planet it's the best we have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Who is the best triple threat actor?
36
652
daffyduck replied
  • Poll
Who is the bigger asshole?
2
86
2K
Ikutachi replied
  • Poll
Who is the better actor, Will Smith or Maggie Smith?
12
284
Avid Reading Horse replied
The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue
1
51
Poppinfresh replied
Who is your GAF best friend?
2 3 4
155
3K
Paasei replied
Top Bottom