Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
not an empire (Read 1108 times)
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 13182
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: not an empire
Reply #15 - May 10th, 2025 at 6:30am
 
At the Moscow jack-boot parade, Xi met the press with Putin on Thursday.

'China and Russia should keep a firm grasp on the development of human society, Xi said, calling for greater joint efforts in safeguarding international fairness and justice'.

Their fascist expansion is fair and just for national socialism.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14654
Gender: male
Re: not an empire
Reply #16 - May 10th, 2025 at 8:05am
 
chimera wrote on Dec 12th, 2024 at 10:51am:
For decades, both US and China stated they were anti-imperial. They were in fact anti British Empire for different reasons. Russia joined the anti-imperial camp while occupying East Europe.

As the word 'empire' is not used for their own interests, then the claim continues.  Gradually, the old compulsion is taking shape -
China in Tibet, north India and China Sea.
Russia in Crimea, Ukraine, Georgia and maybe Baltic areas.
The US has several Pacific territories and semi-territories world-wide.
Where these collide, the militaries are involved and battles of empires are seen in actions if not in names.  The European empires began as explorations, gold digging or spice-trading. They were commercial companies, then military expeditions and finally empires.  Events now may be the introduction to the next imperial conflicts while denying it's happening. 

The terms 'empire' and 'imperial' are impossible to avoid when characterising super-states such as the US and China, as their actions tend to be indistinguishable from those of self-declared empires, such as the British Empire.

All super-states do what they will, while the rest suffer what they must.

The US deflects from accusations of imperialism by claiming it's not an empire because it doesn't stay and administer/rule a foreign state directly.

But, as is historically well-known, super-states can rule just as effectively indirectly.

The US establishes military bases everywhere it can, which, when needed, are equipped to be fully operational as an advanced hub for prosecuting war or foreign state administration.

China establishes economic strangleholds on foreign states that bind them or give them little choice but to submit to its will.

The territorial claims of both these super-states, unlike traditional empires of history, however, are usually strictly limited to their region, using the history of their peoples' habitation there to support their claims - this being the basis of their claim that they are not imperial.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50002
At my desk.
Re: not an empire
Reply #17 - May 10th, 2025 at 9:37am
 
Quote:
The terms 'empire' and 'imperial' are impossible to avoid when characterising super-states such as the US and China, as their actions tend to be indistinguishable from those of self-declared empires, such as the British Empire.


It is easy to avoid. Just don't use the word. And their actions are quite easy to distinguish. The key distinction being that the US, and so far China, are not building an empire.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14654
Gender: male
Re: not an empire
Reply #18 - May 10th, 2025 at 9:49am
 
freediver wrote on May 10th, 2025 at 9:37am:
Quote:
The terms 'empire' and 'imperial' are impossible to avoid when characterising super-states such as the US and China, as their actions tend to be indistinguishable from those of self-declared empires, such as the British Empire.


It is easy to avoid. Just don't use the word. And their actions are quite easy to distinguish. The key distinction being that the US, and so far China, are not building an empire.

Sure, if you lived before the 20th century.

States established themselves in outposts around the world before the 20th century because their projection of rule required them to - there being no rapid means of reaching them otherwise.

The US ended the 19th century on a path to becoming a traditional empire when it took the Philippines from Spain.

However, it walked away from traditional imperialism when it struck on a more effective means of imperialism, made possible by the massive advancement of transportation technology after WW2.

By establishing fully functional military bases in every country it ventured into, the US could effectively rule in an imperial sense in the same way as the British did.

To say it's not an empire is like a Mafia Don insisting he's not a criminal mobster, just an import-exporter of goods and personnel.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50002
At my desk.
Re: not an empire
Reply #19 - May 10th, 2025 at 9:55am
 
Quote:
the US could effectively rule in an imperial sense in the same way as the British did.


No they couldn't.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14654
Gender: male
Re: not an empire
Reply #20 - May 10th, 2025 at 9:57am
 
freediver wrote on May 10th, 2025 at 9:55am:
Quote:
the US could effectively rule in an imperial sense in the same way as the British did.


No they couldn't.

Yes, they could, and do... at least when they wanted to up until 5 minutes ago, when the cost ran too high as it always does with empires.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jasin
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 51736
Gender: male
Re: not an empire
Reply #21 - May 10th, 2025 at 10:20am
 
The Australian Empire is extending itself with footballs for PNG against a possible Chinese threat.
Back to top
 

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50002
At my desk.
Re: not an empire
Reply #22 - May 10th, 2025 at 10:26am
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on May 10th, 2025 at 9:57am:
freediver wrote on May 10th, 2025 at 9:55am:
Quote:
the US could effectively rule in an imperial sense in the same way as the British did.


No they couldn't.

Yes, they could, and do... at least when they wanted to up until 5 minutes ago, when the cost ran too high as it always does with empires.


So tell me, how much tax revenue does the US collect from its 'empire'?

At what rate are Americans settling this 'empire'?

Or do you think the British established an empire for the sole purpose of giving free military aid?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14654
Gender: male
Re: not an empire
Reply #23 - May 10th, 2025 at 10:34am
 
The way Britain managed the dissolution of its empire was also due to its cost.

As far back as the mid-18th century, Britain began granting dominion status to some of its colonies, with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, and the Irish Free State (now Ireland).

In 1948, Britain formally ended the British Empire and abolished the monarch's Imperial title, although its true end came a few years later after Eisenhower publicly demanded the British withdraw from the Suez.

Since then, the only vestige of its former Imperial role has been in the monarchy and the Privy Council, with the British monarch being retained in as many former colonies as their respective people desire, but reigns in name only, and the Privy Council being retained as the independent state wishes.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jasin
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 51736
Gender: male
Re: not an empire
Reply #24 - May 10th, 2025 at 11:06am
 
Having lost its grip on America, Argentina and other parts of the world.
The Media Empire now has Australia under its control as a last bastion
Back to top
 

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50002
At my desk.
Re: not an empire
Reply #25 - May 10th, 2025 at 11:12am
 
Meister, how much tax revenue does the US collect from its 'empire'?

At what rate are Americans settling this 'empire'?

Or do you actually think the British established an empire for the sole purpose of giving free military aid?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 50638
Gender: male
Re: not an empire
Reply #26 - May 10th, 2025 at 2:11pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on May 10th, 2025 at 10:34am:
The way Britain managed the dissolution of its empire was also due to its cost.

As far back as the mid-18th century, Britain began granting dominion status to some of its colonies, with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, and the Irish Free State (now Ireland).

In 1948, Britain formally ended the British Empire and abolished the monarch's Imperial title, although its true end came a few years later after Eisenhower publicly demanded the British withdraw from the Suez.

Since then, the only vestige of its former Imperial role has been in the monarchy and the Privy Council, with the British monarch being retained in as many former colonies as their respective people desire, but reigns in name only, and the Privy Council being retained as the independent state wishes.

The cost was fighting Nazism, not the cost of colonial public service.  France, surrendering to Germany pronto, did not lose its empire at the end of the war.

Decolonisation after 1945 was a natural continuation of fight for liberation from Nazi Germany in Europe spreading to the rest of the world, as liberation from various, now-liberated colonial powers like Britain, France, Belgium, and Germany itself.

The decolonisation of British settler countries like Canada, Australia, NZ and the US,  of course,  began much earlier. How ready the coloured chappies of Africa and Asia were for independence is another question, still debatable today.
Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14654
Gender: male
Re: not an empire
Reply #27 - May 10th, 2025 at 2:51pm
 
freediver wrote on May 10th, 2025 at 11:12am:
Meister, how much tax revenue does the US collect from its 'empire'?

At what rate are Americans settling this 'empire'?

Or do you actually think the British established an empire for the sole purpose of giving free military aid?

300 billion from Australia alone from purchasing phantom submarines.

Every dollar the US expended defending Britain in WW2 was repaid with interest by US demand.

The US has been exporting its debt to the rest of the world for nearly 80 years.

The multiple US interventions in the affairs of most South American states led to massive US economic benefit via the respective installed leaders paying 'tribute' to the US, similar to how the Romans first managed the likes of, say, Egypt.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14654
Gender: male
Re: not an empire
Reply #28 - May 10th, 2025 at 2:57pm
 
Frank wrote on May 10th, 2025 at 2:11pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on May 10th, 2025 at 10:34am:
The way Britain managed the dissolution of its empire was also due to its cost.

As far back as the mid-18th century, Britain began granting dominion status to some of its colonies, with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, and the Irish Free State (now Ireland).

In 1948, Britain formally ended the British Empire and abolished the monarch's Imperial title, although its true end came a few years later after Eisenhower publicly demanded the British withdraw from the Suez.

Since then, the only vestige of its former Imperial role has been in the monarchy and the Privy Council, with the British monarch being retained in as many former colonies as their respective people desire, but reigns in name only, and the Privy Council being retained as the independent state wishes.

The cost was fighting Nazism, not the cost of colonial public service.  France, surrendering to Germany pronto, did not lose its empire at the end of the war.

Decolonisation after 1945 was a natural continuation of fight for liberation from Nazi Germany in Europe spreading to the rest of the world, as liberation from various, now-liberated colonial powers like Britain, France, Belgium, and Germany itself.

The decolonisation of British settler countries like Canada, Australia, NZ and the US,  of course,  began much earlier. How ready the coloured chappies of Africa and Asia were for independence is another question, still debatable today.

The inevitable crushing cost of running its empire dawned on the British establishment by the mid-19th century, which is the primary reason why the colonies in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa were granted dominion status.

The US agreed to British demands that its empire be returned to it after WW2 with one unegotiable condition: that it grant independence to every colony and possession that demanded it.

Churchill, himself, was contemplating reneging on the promise of Indian independence, but he was quickly disabused of that notion.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14654
Gender: male
Re: not an empire
Reply #29 - May 10th, 2025 at 3:11pm
 
The US quickly began exploiting Britain's gains from its imperial years and arrogating the profits to itself... notably in Iran, where the British were balls-deep trying to overthrow Mossadegh, who was threatening to nationalise the oil industry.

The CIA succeeded where MI6 had failed, and the US installed the Shah, who handed over the rights to its oil to the US, depriving BP of its claims to Iranian oil.

To this day, it's a common Iranian belief that Britain secretly runs its empire via the US as its proxy.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print