So, one of our Professors doesn't like to say "support our t

[USN_Hokie]

Disagree. You can't argue that was the goal just because it describes the current state. The current state is not anyone's desired end state. Besides, how does your definition not reduce the argument to absurdity? What participants in a war would NOT fit that definition by your interpretation? Was TJ and the US engaging in imperialism during the Barbary wars?

At a minimum, it fits all the countries I listed before, including Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just like socialism isn't identical in every time and place, neither is imperialism. For instance, British imperialism was entirely different that Roman imperialism. In the US, just like socialism is a dirty word, and most people who believe in socialism prefer to call themselves "progressives," imperialism is a dirty word. Imperialists prefer to say that the government is protecting "our" interests, defending our freedom, spreading democracy, etc. "Imperialism" was replaced with words like "American exceptionalism," "manifest destiny," or just "nation building," but the ideas aren't that much different. That they've decided it's cheaper and more palatable to us to use methods of control other than outright conquering doesn't change anything.

Can you name a country which fits even that (broad) definition? It doesn't fit Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other country in recent history.

It's not just exploiting another country for money or natural resources.

the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas

Dictionary definitions of complicated ideas aren't the greatest, but even this definition fits pretty well.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imperialism

WADR, I take particular exception to the phrase "American Imperialism." That's bullshirt...look at the definition of imperialism and tell me how it fits. Name one country that the US has an unequal economic relationship (at the point of a gun) with.

Even better, if we were guilty of imperialism....well that kind of blows the argument that were going broke fighting wars, doesn't it? Which is it? Are we profiteering imperialists, or world police bankrupting the country?

[HokieJoe]

How do you define imperialism?

I never made that claim, I only implied that it wasn't something about Salaita's article that is incorrect.
I didn't realize there were people who don't believe American imperialism doesn't exist. I thought it was commonly accepted at this point that the US pretty much sets the standard for modern imperialism.

So be specific, what in his article was incorrect?

I was, you claimed imperialism wasn't in the piece but it was. And pretty much all of it is BS, that's just one of the most laughable accusations.

[Marine Hokie]

Disagree. You can't argue that was the goal just because it describes the current state. The current state is not anyone's desired end state.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here unless you're more specific about the particular country or action. Is this about Iraq and Afghanistan?

Besides, how does your definition not reduce the argument to absurdity? What participants in a war would NOT fit that definition by your interpretation? Was TJ and the US engaging in imperialism during the Barbary wars?

In what way did anything I said have to do with the Barbary Wars?

At a minimum, it fits all the countries I listed before, including Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just like socialism isn't identical in every time and place, neither is imperialism. For instance, British imperialism was entirely different that Roman imperialism. In the US, just like socialism is a dirty word, and most people who believe in socialism prefer to call themselves "progressives," imperialism is a dirty word. Imperialists prefer to say that the government is protecting "our" interests, defending our freedom, spreading democracy, etc. "Imperialism" was replaced with words like "American exceptionalism," "manifest destiny," or just "nation building," but the ideas aren't that much different. That they've decided it's cheaper and more palatable to us to use methods of control other than outright conquering doesn't change anything.

Can you name a country which fits even that (broad) definition? It doesn't fit Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other country in recent history.

It's not just exploiting another country for money or natural resources.

the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas

Dictionary definitions of complicated ideas aren't the greatest, but even this definition fits pretty well.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imperialism

WADR, I take particular exception to the phrase "American Imperialism." That's bullshirt...look at the definition of imperialism and tell me how it fits. Name one country that the US has an unequal economic relationship (at the point of a gun) with.

Even better, if we were guilty of imperialism....well that kind of blows the argument that were going broke fighting wars, doesn't it? Which is it? Are we profiteering imperialists, or world police bankrupting the country?

[Marine Hokie]

This is missing the point. Whether we want to call American imperialism imperialism, or call it spreading democracy and protecting our interests doesn't change anything.

Anyway, the larger point is that I asked for specifics on how he was incorrect in his article. So far, all I've heard is that Awesome doesn't agree with him that the US government has imperialist policies.

How do you define imperialism?

I never made that claim, I only implied that it wasn't something about Salaita's article that is incorrect.
I didn't realize there were people who don't believe American imperialism doesn't exist. I thought it was commonly accepted at this point that the US pretty much sets the standard for modern imperialism.

So be specific, what in his article was incorrect?

I was, you claimed imperialism wasn't in the piece but it was. And pretty much all of it is BS, that's just one of the most laughable accusations.

[USN_Hokie]

Disagree. You can't argue that was the goal just because it describes the current state. The current state is not anyone's desired end state.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here unless you're more specific about the particular country or action. Is this about Iraq and Afghanistan?

Besides, how does your definition not reduce the argument to absurdity? What participants in a war would NOT fit that definition by your interpretation? Was TJ and the US engaging in imperialism during the Barbary wars?

In what way did anything I said have to do with the Barbary Wars?

At a minimum, it fits all the countries I listed before, including Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just like socialism isn't identical in every time and place, neither is imperialism. For instance, British imperialism was entirely different that Roman imperialism. In the US, just like socialism is a dirty word, and most people who believe in socialism prefer to call themselves "progressives," imperialism is a dirty word. Imperialists prefer to say that the government is protecting "our" interests, defending our freedom, spreading democracy, etc. "Imperialism" was replaced with words like "American exceptionalism," "manifest destiny," or just "nation building," but the ideas aren't that much different. That they've decided it's cheaper and more palatable to us to use methods of control other than outright conquering doesn't change anything.

Can you name a country which fits even that (broad) definition? It doesn't fit Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other country in recent history.

It's not just exploiting another country for money or natural resources.

the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas

Dictionary definitions of complicated ideas aren't the greatest, but even this definition fits pretty well.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imperialism

WADR, I take particular exception to the phrase "American Imperialism." That's bullshirt...look at the definition of imperialism and tell me how it fits. Name one country that the US has an unequal economic relationship (at the point of a gun) with.

Even better, if we were guilty of imperialism....well that kind of blows the argument that were going broke fighting wars, doesn't it? Which is it? Are we profiteering imperialists, or world police bankrupting the country?

You said that Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of US imperialism. Explain to me how that wouldn't also apply to the Barbary Wars (not only did we put boots on the ground, we tried to install a puppet leader as I recall) or just about any US war I can think of.

If the word can be used to describe any conflict, how useful is it (or rather, how broad is your interpretation)?

I really respect your opinion and enjoy reading your perspective on the issues, I just heartily disagree here.

[USN_Hokie]

This is missing the point. Whether we want to call American imperialism imperialism, or call it spreading democracy and protecting our interests doesn't change anything.

Anyway, the larger point is that I asked for specifics on how he was incorrect in his article. So far, all I've heard is that Awesome doesn't agree with him that the US government has imperialist policies.

How do you define imperialism?

I never made that claim, I only implied that it wasn't something about Salaita's article that is incorrect.
I didn't realize there were people who don't believe American imperialism doesn't exist. I thought it was commonly accepted at this point that the US pretty much sets the standard for modern imperialism.

So be specific, what in his article was incorrect?

I was, you claimed imperialism wasn't in the piece but it was. And pretty much all of it is BS, that's just one of the most laughable accusations.

For the record, I'm not debating the article...

[awesome guy]

I think that's just the case in libertarian and jihadist circles.

I don't think that's true. Google benevolent imperialism. Plenty of republicans and democrats support US imperialism. Some call it what it is, some don't.

So like to call protecting national interest "imperialism" because it sounds menacing, some don't.

The American Empire is easily disproved by the fact we leave the nations we engage war with

When did the US leave Hawaii, the land taken in the war with Mexico, the war with Spain, Japan, Germany, Iraq, Korea, etc?

What about Hawaii makes you think it was an empirical expansion? With Mexico, we kept some lands they lost in their war of aggression. Tuff luck for them. For the rest, we kept bases of operation of ensure no further militaristic action against us. If we were imperialistic, we're the worst empire builder in the history of empires because we could conquer the world and absorb them into our "empire". Instead, we fight off invaders and get involved with proxy wars with the communist and play world policeman. If we were imperialistic, we would just make Iraq and Afghanistan the 51st and 52nd states(or 59th and 60th if you listen to Barry)

Then you're left "empire" meaning we support regimes friendly to us and oppose ones hostile towards us. And then you're really just left with "empire" to meaning engaging in global politics for it's benefit. And that's exactly what everyone does, so it's just a slanderous term to say you don't like us looking out for ourselves.

Who is looking out for whom?

Everyone is looking out for themselves. And really we're going above and beyond that with the global police job, to prevent small wars from expanding into global wars as they have in the past. Again, if we were imperialistic, we would just conquer them, take their wealth, and let them be citizens. That's not even close to what we do.

[awesome guy]

This is missing the point. Whether we want to call American imperialism imperialism, or call it spreading democracy and protecting our interests doesn't change anything.

Protecting interest != imperialism. Or again, how are we imperialistic? Why aren't Japan, Germany, Spain, Mexico, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc US states or territories? I get that you're playing games with the definition of imperialism to get to that position. I'm pointing out that by changing the definition like that, it not longer means anything close to "imperialism".

[Marine Hokie]

I'm not aware of the US government of trying to install a puppet leader in Tripoli, Algeria, or wherever else the wars were fought. If that's the case, then that may be a great example of US imperialism. Otherwise, taking military action to protect sailors from your country from being attacked isn't particularly imperialistic.
Even if it does apply to the Barbary Wars, or to every other US war, that doesn't mean it wouldn't apply to Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not sure what about my use of imperialism you think would make it apply to every war, just on the merit of it being a war.

-
FWIW, I also respect your opinion on UWS issues. I'm glad we have a place to exchange ideas. I just think you're wrong on this.
We can call it modern/US imperialism or not, but I think arguing over whether that particular word applies misses the larger point. Both the point of my original posts and even the point of whether US involvement in other countries is valid.

You said that Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of US imperialism. Explain to me how that wouldn't also apply to the Barbary Wars (not only did we put boots on the ground, we tried to install a puppet leader as I recall) or just about any US war I can think of.

If the word can be used to describe any conflict, how useful is it (or rather, how broad is your interpretation)?

I really respect your opinion and enjoy reading your perspective on the issues, I just heartily disagree here.

[USN_Hokie]

I'm not aware of the US government of trying to install a puppet leader in Tripoli, Algeria, or wherever else the wars were fought. If that's the case, then that may be a great example of US imperialism. Otherwise, taking military action to protect sailors from your country from being attacked isn't particularly imperialistic.
Even if it does apply to the Barbary Wars, or to every other US war, that doesn't mean it wouldn't apply to Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not sure what about my use of imperialism you think would make it apply to every war, just on the merit of it being a war.

-
FWIW, I also respect your opinion on UWS issues. I'm glad we have a place to exchange ideas. I just think you're wrong on this.
We can call it modern/US imperialism or not, but I think arguing over whether that particular word applies misses the larger point. Both the point of my original posts and even the point of whether US involvement in other countries is valid.

You said that Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of US imperialism. Explain to me how that wouldn't also apply to the Barbary Wars (not only did we put boots on the ground, we tried to install a puppet leader as I recall) or just about any US war I can think of.

If the word can be used to describe any conflict, how useful is it (or rather, how broad is your interpretation)?

I really respect your opinion and enjoy reading your perspective on the issues, I just heartily disagree here.

I read it in Ian Toll's "Six Frigates."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/039333032X

I'll have dig up the source. Wiki references it...

"Wearied of the blockade and raids, and now under threat of a continued advance on Tripoli proper and a scheme to restore his deposed older brother Hamet Karamanli as ruler, Yusuf Karamanli signed a treaty ending hostilities on June 10, 1805. "

Basically, the older brother was exiled, and the US took him and landed with a force to overthrow the current regime and seat the brother.

[Major Kong]

I know there is much discussion amongst the academics as to the question of American Hegemony but I truly believe that we're more of a global hegemon than a true "imperial" power.

[Marine Hokie]

So like to call protecting national interest "imperialism" because it sounds menacing, some don't.
What about Hawaii makes you think it was an empirical expansion? With Mexico, we kept some lands they lost in their war of aggression. Tuff luck for them. For the rest, we kept bases of operation of ensure no further militaristic action against us.

That's imperialism.

If we were imperialistic, we're the worst empire builder in the history of empires because we could conquer the world and absorb them into our "empire".

Didn't we just determine this is what happened with Hawaii and Mexico?
Anyway, as I said before, that modern imperialists have realized it cheaper and more agreeable to people to just use bombs, missiles, the CIA, invasions/attacks without outright annexation, and setting up new governments doesn't make it any less imperialist.

Instead, we fight off invaders

When was that?

Everyone is looking out for themselves.

Specifically, who is looking out for whom? Certainly not "we" or "us".

And really we're going above and beyond that with the global police job, to prevent small wars from expanding into global wars as they have in the past.

That's the reason for Obama bombing 6 countries? That's the reason for invading Iraq?

[awesome guy]

I know there is much discussion amongst the academics as to the question of American Hegemony but I truly believe that we're more of a global hegemon than a true "imperial" power.

That's closer to the way I see. We're without a doubt the big boy on the planet. But we're not conquering neighbors and taking their stuff. We're not even taking their stuff. If anything we establish mutually beneficial businesses or a puppet regime so we're not attacked by whatever crazy faction wants to control said nation. Afghanistan attacked us. That was clear national defense. Iraq blurred the line a lot more by removing a potential threat, but not a materialized one.

Even with Obama's wars in Libya, Egypt, and looking like Syria; he's working to create a muslim caliphate by removing our previously propped up dictators. I don't think he's working in our interests, but he's not building an American empire. If anything, the he's trying to build a muslim equivalent to the US so they can carry more power in the world. This is in line the Madeleine Albright/Clinton view of moral equivalency and equal powers makes for a more stable world. But of course the Muslims aren't our moral equivalent, they're more like the imperialists we're accused of being. So it's like Apple fans accusing Microsoft of being an evil empire when they're far more evil and cut throat than MS, just not as successful. Anyway, whenever I read a Muslim whine of American imperialism or American tyranny, I think of it as projection in psychological terms.

[awesome guy]

Sorry bro, keeping a base isn't imperialism. Empires keep everything. We keep a deterrent so they know not to try whatever they did again. That's one of our lessons learned from WWII after return to isolationism after WWI.

Mexico is not a US state. Hawaii wanted to be a state.

Replacing their government with ours gets to the heart of imperialism. That's what imperialism is. Imperialism is not war.

So like to call protecting national interest "imperialism" because it sounds menacing, some don't.
What about Hawaii makes you think it was an empirical expansion? With Mexico, we kept some lands they lost in their war of aggression. Tuff luck for them. For the rest, we kept bases of operation of ensure no further militaristic action against us.

That's imperialism.

If we were imperialistic, we're the worst empire builder in the history of empires because we could conquer the world and absorb them into our "empire".

Didn't we just determine this is what happened with Hawaii and Mexico?
Anyway, as I said before, that modern imperialists have realized it cheaper and more agreeable to people to just use bombs, missiles, the CIA, invasions/attacks without outright annexation, and setting up new governments doesn't make it any less imperialist.

Instead, we fight off invaders

When was that?

[Marine Hokie]

I haven't changed a definition of anything. I linked earlier to a dictionary (for what it's worth) definition.
I didn't say that the definition of imperialism is "protecting our interests," but that it's one of many modern euphemisms for it. Read my earlier posts. Otherwise, are you suggesting that I'm also changing the definition of imperialism to "defending our freedom" and "spreading democracy"?

You are the one changing the definition of imperialism to something that requires the explicit and permanent conquering of a country (unless it's from a war with Mexico, or is Hawaii).

This is missing the point. Whether we want to call American imperialism imperialism, or call it spreading democracy and protecting our interests doesn't change anything.

Protecting interest != imperialism. Or again, how are we imperialistic? Why aren't Japan, Germany, Spain, Mexico, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc US states or territories? I get that you're playing games with the definition of imperialism to get to that position. I'm pointing out that by changing the definition like that, it not longer means anything close to "imperialism".

[Marine Hokie]

Thank you for that.

I'm not aware of the US government of trying to install a puppet leader in Tripoli, Algeria, or wherever else the wars were fought. If that's the case, then that may be a great example of US imperialism. Otherwise, taking military action to protect sailors from your country from being attacked isn't particularly imperialistic.
Even if it does apply to the Barbary Wars, or to every other US war, that doesn't mean it wouldn't apply to Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not sure what about my use of imperialism you think would make it apply to every war, just on the merit of it being a war.

-
FWIW, I also respect your opinion on UWS issues. I'm glad we have a place to exchange ideas. I just think you're wrong on this.
We can call it modern/US imperialism or not, but I think arguing over whether that particular word applies misses the larger point. Both the point of my original posts and even the point of whether US involvement in other countries is valid.

You said that Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of US imperialism. Explain to me how that wouldn't also apply to the Barbary Wars (not only did we put boots on the ground, we tried to install a puppet leader as I recall) or just about any US war I can think of.

If the word can be used to describe any conflict, how useful is it (or rather, how broad is your interpretation)?

I really respect your opinion and enjoy reading your perspective on the issues, I just heartily disagree here.

I read it in Ian Toll's "Six Frigates."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/039333032X

I'll have dig up the source. Wiki references it...

"Wearied of the blockade and raids, and now under threat of a continued advance on Tripoli proper and a scheme to restore his deposed older brother Hamet Karamanli as ruler, Yusuf Karamanli signed a treaty ending hostilities on June 10, 1805. "

Basically, the older brother was exiled, and the US took him and landed with a force to overthrow the current regime and seat the brother.

[Marine Hokie]

That's a valid position. Otherwise, we're arguing semantics.

I know there is much discussion amongst the academics as to the question of American Hegemony but I truly believe that we're more of a global hegemon than a true "imperial" power.

[awesome guy]

We're going to have to agree to disagree. We're not an empire and calling us one is just wrong and needlessly inflammatory.

I haven't changed a definition of anything. I linked earlier to a dictionary (for what it's worth) definition.
I didn't say that the definition of imperialism is "protecting our interests," but that it's one of many modern euphemisms for it. Read my earlier posts. Otherwise, are you suggesting that I'm also changing the definition of imperialism to "defending our freedom" and "spreading democracy"?

You are the one changing the definition of imperialism to something that requires the explicit and permanent conquering of a country (unless it's from a war with Mexico, or is Hawaii).

This is missing the point. Whether we want to call American imperialism imperialism, or call it spreading democracy and protecting our interests doesn't change anything.

Protecting interest != imperialism. Or again, how are we imperialistic? Why aren't Japan, Germany, Spain, Mexico, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc US states or territories? I get that you're playing games with the definition of imperialism to get to that position. I'm pointing out that by changing the definition like that, it not longer means anything close to "imperialism".

[jmac610]

I would like to sign up for his class,
just to be able to walk out and then drop it.

"support our troops"
http://www.examiner.com/article/va-tec ... ps?cid=rss

Anyone ever have this nut?

[Marine Hokie]

Sorry bro, keeping a base isn't imperialism. Empires keep everything. We keep a deterrent so they know not to try whatever they did again.

Seriously, how do you not get that's imperialism?

"the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence"

That's one of our lessons learned from WWII

So WWII happened because of a lack of US military bases in other countries?

after return to isolationism after WWI.

I know your history teacher told you otherwise, but post WWI isolationism is a myth to encourage policies of intervention (like you're doing here).
That the US didn't join the League of Nations is hardly isolationism. Protective tariffs (economic isolation) and stricter immigration policies may have been bad, but they don't count as isolationism either.
Historians who specialize in the area reject that the US was in a period of isolationism, and instead insist that it was a period of internationalism. The US government's involvement in the Washington Naval conference, the Dawes Plan (I realize this wasn't an official government action other than by proxy), and various treaties destroys any argument that there was a period of isolationism.

Mexico is not a US state.

Right... but much of what used to be Mexico is.

Hawaii wanted to be a state.

Only because they were already conquered and made a territory (are we still not calling this imperialism?), and figured since they were citizens anyway, they may as well become a state and be able to vote.

Replacing their government with ours gets to the heart of imperialism.

Again, you're changing the definition of imperialism.

Imperialism is not war.

Right. I never said it was.

[Marine Hokie]

We're not an empire and calling us one is just wrong and needlessly inflammatory.

I'm not calling "us" one. I'm saying the US government has imperialist policies. The distinction is significant.

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

Probably so. So we've determined that there's one thing in his article you think he was incorrect about. I'm not defending the person, but is there anything else where you think he was actually incorrect in his article?

[Hokie5150]

VA Tech professor: Stop saying "Support the Troops"
http://www.examiner.com/article/va-tech ... the-troops

Excerpt:

Steven Salaita, an associate professor of English at Virginia Tech, argues in a column posted this morning at Salon.com that Americans should stop saying "support the troops," calling it "trite and tiresome." He argues that patriotism and voicing support for the troops is merely a cover for American "imperialism" and likens American soldiers to murderers and ignorant individuals who "act like an Adam Sandler character."

[BigDave]

Awesome! I get to try out the merge threads feature!

VA Tech professor: Stop saying "Support the Troops"
http://www.examiner.com/article/va-tech ... the-troops

Excerpt:

Steven Salaita, an associate professor of English at Virginia Tech, argues in a column posted this morning at Salon.com that Americans should stop saying "support the troops," calling it "trite and tiresome." He argues that patriotism and voicing support for the troops is merely a cover for American "imperialism" and likens American soldiers to murderers and ignorant individuals who "act like an Adam Sandler character."

[BigDave]

Awesome! I get to try out the merge threads feature!

Well that works very oddly. You would think that you would select the two threads you want to merge and then click "merge". No, that doesn't work. You have to select just one of them, click merge, and then click on the thread you want to merge it into.

[1980vt]

Saying he is tired of "Support our Troops" campaigns.

http://www.examiner.com/article/va-tech ... qus_thread