American Empire is falling?

[tremor77]

These corporations that you speak of, many feel no allegiance to any country let alone the US. Their country of allegiance is the profit margin. In the future, it will be corporations that own/run the world and not countries. An isolationist policy may be a big step backward... but sometimes that is a step that we must take in order to prevent stepping off the edge of a freaking cliff. I'd much rather be a citizen of a country identified as an empire, than property of the umbrella corporation.

[neuromanta]

Why do other (noted: jealous) countries, and a few self deprecating Americans themselves, insist on calling the USA an Empire. As I see it, in a historical context, we are not trying to expand our borders and add new states and colonies. Yes this an element of our history but, for the last 50 years, manifest destiny has been a lesson in history books and I think Americans are content to remain in it's currently physical state... besides, the flag would look silly with any more stars on it. Is it wrong however, for us to protect our interests and allies across the globe? This does not make an empire, only a nation, like all the others... except through our past intelligence and ingenuity it has put us ahead of much of the world... and yes, maybe in the recent years America has staggered a bit, which is fine by me and most Americans I imagine, because frankly I'm tired of taking care of and helping the resting of the world with their problems. It's time to resurrect the isolationist movement, take our hands of the wheel here in America and then we'll see the rest of the world drives.

To World: From America
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯/`
........../'/.../..../....././¨¯\
........('(...´...´....¯~ /' . . .' )
.........\.................'...../
..........\.................../
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

What? When did america help any other country? Any time they "helped", they did it for their own good, not for the good of others. You really believe that the afganistan war is about fighting terrorism? No, it's about getting the oil. If america is such generous, why they didn't help Tibet? I'll tell you why: because they can't make profit from helping a small country like that.

[tremor77]

What? When did america help any other country? Any time they "helped", they did it for their own good, not for the good of others. You really believe that the afganistan war is about fighting terrorism? No, it's about getting the oil. If america is such generous, why they didn't help Tibet? I'll tell you why: because they can't make profit from helping a small country like that.

NAME ONE COUNTRY ON THIS PLANET THAT HELPS OTHER COUNTRIES FOR ANY OTHER REASON THAN SOME SELF SERVING INTEREST.

Re-read my post more carefully.. and I don't think that you will see me state anywhere that the US helps others just to feel good about ourselves. In fact...

Is it wrong however, for us to protect our interests and allies across the globe?

I explicitly stated we invest in our interests. Who doesn't? Or do you deny human nature simply because it's in the form of a government...

[mRmasteRful]

NAME ONE COUNTRY ON THIS PLANET THAT HELPS OTHER COUNTRIES FOR ANY OTHER REASON THAN SOME SELF SERVING INTEREST.

Good point. Countries cater to their own and any help they may give to others usually has the intent of some benefit to themselves whether it be a direct one or not. That being said there is no reason the US has to go around screwing things over the rest of the world. Just looking at where Im from. They've screwed over Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Panama, Trinidad and Tobago (just of what Ive heard of (So far)) via the lobbying for removal of the Lome Agreement, disregard over their own 'Monroe doctrine', companies like Chiquita with their stranglehold over the banana market, and of course taking advantage of our economy by exporting something like 95% of our oil at an undisclosed price (actually this one may not be the US fault).

rereading this I realize I didnt actually make a point. Maybe when I awake later this morning *yawns*

[insomaniacal]

If america is such generous, why they didn't help Tibet? I'll tell you why: because they can't make profit from helping a small country like that.

Do we really want to screw with our biggest trading partner and competitor in the world? Starting War with China would have catastrophic results for the United States and China. The effect would certainly spread, since so many other countries depend on products from China, or aid from the US, and it's not such a big step to see an enormous world-wide conflict emerging from this.

And like you mentioned, we can't make much gain from Tibet. It'd be like chopping our own head off to save the life of a random stranger somewhere halfway around the world. And, if you still think it's a good idea, "You first".

[goluhaque]

It's time to resurrect the isolationist movement, take our hands of the wheel here in America and then we'll see the rest of the world drives.

Yeah sure, you guys should do that. We will see where USA lands up then.

[msbachman]

It's time to resurrect the isolationist movement, take our hands of the wheel here in America and then we'll see the rest of the world drives.

Yeah sure, you guys should do that. We will see where USA lands up then.

You'd think the amount of aid we give directly to your country, as well as indirect support a la bombing the piss out of undesirables in neighboring Pakistan, would foster at least a tiny amount of good-will from beneficiaries of American generosity.

More and more, I think just staying the hell out of the affairs of others is a viable solution to many of our problems. I'm sick of seeing news reports on how much we're spending, both monetarily and in human lives, to improve political and living conditions in an area adjacent to your homeland.

If you don't want international aid, fine. But don't act like the big bad Americans are holding your people down at the same time; that's a load of shit, and you know it.

Pretty soon, when we're out of Iraq and Afghanistan, insurgents will start funneling east rather than west. I wonder where your country's politicians will go when Mumbai-attacks are a bi-weekly occurrence? Who will be sympathetic to your concerns with such an attitude as was shown here?

[tgoe]

These corporations that you speak of, many feel no allegiance to any country let alone the US. Their country of allegiance is the profit margin. In the future, it will be corporations that own/run the world and not countries. An isolationist policy may be a big step backward... but sometimes that is a step that we must take in order to prevent stepping off the edge of a freaking cliff. I'd much rather be a citizen of a country identified as an empire, than property of the umbrella corporation.

That's a tough one but I think I'd rather be a citizen of Wal-Mart vs being a citizen of North Korea.

[goluhaque]

It's time to resurrect the isolationist movement, take our hands of the wheel here in America and then we'll see the rest of the world drives.

Yeah sure, you guys should do that. We will see where USA lands up then.

You'd think the amount of aid we give directly to your country, as well as indirect support a la bombing the piss out of undesirables in neighboring Pakistan, would foster at least a tiny amount of good-will from beneficiaries of American generosity.

More and more, I think just staying the hell out of the affairs of others is a viable solution to many of our problems. I'm sick of seeing news reports on how much we're spending, both monetarily and in human lives, to improve political and living conditions in an area adjacent to your homeland.

If you don't want international aid, fine. But don't act like the big bad Americans are holding your people down at the same time; that's a load of shit, and you know it.

Pretty soon, when we're out of Iraq and Afghanistan, insurgents will start funneling east rather than west. I wonder where your country's politicians will go when Mumbai-attacks are a bi-weekly occurrence? Who will be sympathetic to your concerns with such an attitude as was shown here?

Ha ha, what, getting defensive or something?
The response shows your shitty brain, that's all. I said that pursuing a policy of isolationism will not be "in the interests of The United States of America". I never disputed the fact that USA aids India. I am a big critic of many of the policies of Indian politicians themselves, so I don't think that would have much effect on me. You assumed many facts, without the hint of the presence of the same. PM me if you don't understand that. Will explain to you...erm...sorry, will try to explain it to you in simpler terms.

[tremor77]

These corporations that you speak of, many feel no allegiance to any country let alone the US. Their country of allegiance is the profit margin. In the future, it will be corporations that own/run the world and not countries. An isolationist policy may be a big step backward... but sometimes that is a step that we must take in order to prevent stepping off the edge of a freaking cliff. I'd much rather be a citizen of a country identified as an empire, than property of the umbrella corporation.

That's a tough one but I think I'd rather be a citizen of Wal-Mart vs being a citizen of North Korea.

You got me on that one... but I have known a few Wal-Mart employees who claim that Kim Jong Il is in fact their supervisor.

And on the point of isolationism, @goluhaque you are correct - It would not be in a long term sense, in the best interest of America. But it would be in the 'worst interest' of the rest of the world. Like a star football player holding out on contract negotiations. If we sat out a few games the rest of the world would be begging for help. I'd just like to do it out of principle and spite... because quite honestly and I feel my sentiment is growing in America.. FTW.