How can one prove that US has an imperialistic plan? [on hold]

up vote-2down votefavorite

Looking at how US keeps making up the fake reasons to invade all over the world all the time, it looks like it is on the finish line to build up its empire. How can one prove that some country is becoming and empire? They say that nurse Nariah was a mistake, Kosovo genocide was fake, second invasion into Iraq was make under mistake reason, invasion into Livia was a mistake and so on. I am not asking how is it possible that superintelligent democratic regime, based of "free press" makes one war crime "mistake" after another non-stop. I want to know how to distinguish the stupidity (the western economic pressure and military interventions are explained by stupidity) from the intentional imperialism? Is it possible to prove that all these are not "mistakes" but intentional terror and bending into submission? Will it be easier to say that these all NATO interventions were not a mistake but intentional (crimes) once Russia and China (I am not talking about lesser countries like Iran, Cuba, N.Korea - they will not stand long) are squashed? Edit: @rougon says that mistakes are not convincing because they are sudden and not intentional. He says that Empires do not make mistakes but dictate their will instead. Ok, I agree. But what is more expansive and authoritative than terrorist statement 'either you bend to our rule (join our 'leadership') or we squash you!'? How imposing your leadership by force is different from imperialism, how being exceptional, non-triable is different from being an empire? It seems that with statement The United States Must Be the World’s Policeman Only America has the material and moral greatness to stop the slide into chaos and foster peace Rasmussen pisses right into your eyes. The criminal, who was elevated to the head of NATO for making the "Iraq mistake" in 2003, openly confesses that he is fighting for the US Empire. But, you always find excuses to not agree, to avert your eyes from the Empire step. That is why I ask you: is there anything that convinces you besides the open declaration of US Empire over the mainstream media? united-states geopolitics foreign-policy nato shareeditdeleteflag edited 2 hours ago asked 2 hours ago Little Alien 894

put on hold as unclear what you're asking by Drunk Cynic, Sam I am♦ 17 mins ago Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit your question.

Addition: And then there were a whole crop of liberal publications… And the charge was to criticize the empire, but never criticize it in the way it was really happening... I did a little gathering of the adjectives they used from these various books I mention… Their critiques of US empire characterize US interventionist polices as, quote…

”reckless, misguided, inept, bumbling, insensitive, overreaching, self-deceptive, deluded, driven by false assumptions, and presuming a mandate from God.” This policy “was laden with tragic mistakes, and imperial hubris”… They saw this as “a mindless proclivity embedded in the American psyche or culture.” 

 I want to argue, and I did argue in this book, and I think I showed it, that empire is not something that is done just because people are overambitious or misguided or inept, or they don’t have your guidance…because you’re so much smarter than all those guys are…


Parenti: Writing a book about Roman Empire, I have discovered that most of the literature considers empires favorably, as great accomplishments that bring stability and peace to these squabbling tribes. You have seen that in movies too: the greatness of Rome. You must remember rOme. We also give them piece names: Pax Romana, Pax Britannica.

Empires are also considered as innocent, unintentional accretions. They arise stochastically. Things just happen by chance or randomly such that you cannot see any pattern. Stuff just happens. British historian Robertson, I quote him in the Cesaro book, says the same thing about the Roman Empire: "It was perhaps almost as true of Rome as of Great Britain that acquired its world domination in a fit of absence of mind." More recently, just couple of weeks after invasion into Iraq, a prominent editor wrote: "Empires are born in funny ways, via the law of unintended consequences, by accident."

I am sorry but empires are not innocent, absent-minded, accidental, unintentional creatures. They are given force by purpose-driven rulers who consciously have to mobilize vast amounts of men and materials to conquer and plunder far places. British have not just found themselves in India, you know.

But the term Empire is never applied to the US. How can you talk about Empire without ever mentioning the imperialism -- the process of what empires do! They do imperialism! It is like doctors who concentrate on lungs never speak about breathing.

Now, the liberal critique comes along and say that they [who do imperialism] are so stupid. He is so smarter than them. No. He is dummiest in the room. He always thinks that american foreign policies are so stupid and so confused and dealing with all those countries. IMF ruins the countries but, at the same time, makes billions for rich investors. Is it a failure or well-crafted policy? They call it a failure because they want to stay within the dominant paradigm so they prefer a liberal complaint rather than radical analysis (class analysis).

Now, the same for the war in Iraq. The reasons given by the administration to justify that war, WMD and alQuaeda links to Saddam Hussein, these reasons are proven false. But that doesn't mean that the policy was imbecilic. Just because our rulers try to mislead us does not mean that they themselves are misleaded and confused. The war in Iraq is not a stupid blunder, it was not well-intentioned and went wrong.