When will the U.S. Finally Fall?

TheVoiceInside wrote:

i think this is correct. and the fact that they have military bases stationed all around the world. Protecting their " interest" .

I guess one could say, instead of "colonies," "investments" or "interests."

The empire will fall due to the efforts of keeping it together.

gue_barium wrote:

I think, again, we're just dealing in semantics.

No, no semantics, I think US needs to expand in the middle east as a way to maintain its dominant position in the world and keep its voracious economy “rolling”, so is more a necessity than an orientation in its international relations guidelines or policy making or whatever, so this is one of the many definitions of imperialism: the necessary extension of capitalism (the final phase of capitalism – although that may also be a little antique of a definition! ). Finally, the words (and now I'm talking semantics!!) of US president… clearly imperialistic words…
Colonialism instead is not a necessity and doesn’t justify itself in any “moral superiority” and doesn’t imply the elimination of the colonized nation as wired as that may sound…
Imperialism/colonialism, either way US current (and past too imo) foreign policy sucks!

jlew24asu wrote:

that happened in 1898. what else ya got?

well the fact that we are still a colony. I know that to many people we are probably not that important but the fact remains that the United States has a colony. that would qualify as colonialism.

gue_barium wrote:

Yikes. You think America is in the Middle East for America?
Think again.

what is America?? I was talking about US... and yes I think US economy needs expansion and that is why US is in the middle east (needs petroleum to expand its economy and needs to keep its war industry functioning to keep its economy rolling and lately that is not working so smoothly, yes?) , it is the "decision" of the current administration elected by US citizens... is there another US?

gue_barium wrote:

No, the Middle East "operation" is an inside job carried out through the President's administration. It is based on lies and falsehoods that continue to be told today. Follow the money.

I agree! but then again there is a civil responsability: who elected the US president?

rvp wrote:

I agree! but then again there is a civil responsability: who elected the US president?

Uh.
The Supreme Court?
In direct violation of the Constitution, i might add, which states in no uncertain terms that after an immediate count of the electoral votes, should no clear winner be determined, the decision should go to CONGRESS for an immediate decision.

THE 12TH AMENDMENT:
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

---

ANY QUESTIONS?

jlew24asu wrote:

america isnt trying to colonialize anything

Hi, jlew. I'll repost some of what I was saying in our PM to clarify my remarks.

I was thinking really about the nature of the East India Company, which was formed in 1600. By the 1770s it was seriously concerned with plundering India. The whole way that orientalism as a discourse was being set up around that time is very complex, and Hastings, then by the 1880s Cornwallis, were inevitably instrumental in constructing a notion of India as an exotic other to be controlled.* In the 1770s, they couldn't risk sticking their troops elsewhere in any great measure, so this whole idea of the democratic American little brother was partially accepted even while the War of Independence was being (I reckon) half-heartedly fought on the British front.

The East India Company was in the name of the crown (not officially until 1858 but by proxy of consent, sort of from the start), but it served to protect private corporate-expansionist interests. That was a fact, really. It wasn't until after a series of fuck-ups and disgraces on the E.I.C's front, culminating in the Indian Mutiny of 1857 that Britain realised it had to make its colonising mission officially centralised and sovereign, and in the name of Empire. (I think, off the top of my head, Victoria was crowned empress of India in 1877, and the subcontinent became known as the "jewel in the crown".) There then followed the scramble for Africa in the 1880s and the beginning of the end of things around the Boer War at the turn of the century.

Yep, I do think there's a historical parallel to be drawn between America (neo-colonial) and 18th century Britain, not so much even in what I've just said but in the rhetoric of both eras.

I've written lots of papers on this (in relation to new historicist and post-colonial literary theory, that is), and I don't want to be drawn into discussion at this time of night, but I would recommend this reader as a very useful guide to comparing ideological discourses of the British proto-imperial era and the US today:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=S3e6xy4ghn0C&pg=PP1&dq=imperialism+and+orientalism+documentary+sourcebook&sig=L4s1wHQXOHuaBGHCZakotCGqcf0


* Cornwallis did realise the need for a bit of reform, against the mercenary tendencies of the E.I.C, to give him some due. He did reorganise the E.I.C. where Hastings had failed to check the obvious crookedness of the Company properly.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Uh.
The Supreme Court?
In direct violation of the Constitution, i might add, which states in no uncertain terms that after an immediate count of the electoral votes, should no clear winner be determined, the decision should go to CONGRESS for an immediate decision.

THE 12TH AMENDMENT:
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

---

ANY QUESTIONS?

This is known around the world, how unclear the US presidential election was in 2000…
But I’m talking about the current administration, 2004 presidential election was democratic process, right? Or it was also unconstitutional? Who elects the representatives in congress? And also, who elects the electors??
I have those questions and many more… No need to be sarcastic.