Quoted: Well, if you want to know why the rest of the world (barring a couple of countries), who likes to play warm and fuzzy internationalist statesman games, rarely supports America, this is why. The U.S. persues its own interests with very little regard to the norms of international diplomacy or the almost universal desire of international foreign policy elites to build a rule-based international system. Jealousy is unbecoming. Most of the rest of the world has been recently showing themselves to be completely incompitent, and their "rule-based" international system to be a sham, largely because it requires the admittance of criminal regimes. "International diplomacy" has of late been nothing more than cowardly appeasment.

Well, that directly above is at least one thing you and I agree on.

tag

Quoted: Quoted: They have the power, they have the reach, but can't, because of historical reasons, come to terms with the fact that they could actually impose a "Pax Americana". The US is not an empire, like Great Britain of old. We tried it once, during the Spanish-American War, and it did not work out for us. It's not our nature to rule and subjugate. Commerce is not empire, although some would like to bend the meaning of "empire" to include globalism and international commerce. The US looks after its interests, but it doesn't invade for profit.

I'd have to disagree. You're thinking about empire in the continental European (mainly French or perhaps Russian) mold. Empire, at leat in the British mold, is all about commerce backed by force. Britain didn't didn't get an empire for rule and subjugation. It was all about commerce and protecting interests. The British colonies started as either coaling stations, trading posts or penal colonies. They tended to move inland in the face of either attack by the natives or commercial opportunities. The "U.S. Empire" is in the same vein, but with different methodology. The US bases exist by treaty (as did many British bases, incidentally) and don't need to be so numberous due to modern technology. The move inland is accomplished by soft power. The U.S. doesn't need "crown colonies" either, as it already has places like Hawaii, and the Marianas. Also, most of the British Empire was self-governing and autonomous.

Look at the pattern. Britain moved into an area, quelled opposition, established a local governement that was full of "advisors" and "administrators" from the mother country, and was essentially run to protect British interests, albeit with a strong measure of democracy. The U.S. pattern is very similar. Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect examples. FWIW, Britain didn't couch her empire in converntional terms either. Once she came to terms with the fact of empire, they were expressed in terms of "the white man's burden" and "spreading British values, culture and institutions". Sounds alot like "spreading freedom and democracy" doesn't it? I'd even go so far as to say (flame suit on) that the capital of the British Empire was just moved from London to Washinton D.C. after 1945.

ETA: Spelling

Within the next 10 years, the USA will have to decide on one of two courses of action. Grab the world by the throat, kick it's ass and order it to behave and pay due respect. or retreat into Isolationism. It's Americas 'world', it just needs the will to take it. ANdy

becoming an empire is an exhausting exercise. in the end, your subjects want to move in with you, its hard to keep them out and your slide into a second rate country accelerates...

i don't believe in empires and i dont believe in isolatiionism... most americans feel this way... our general lack of enthusiasm for building democracy in iraq is an example.. sure we wanna kill all the hajis but thats about as far as it goes.

there must be a middle way.....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They have the power, they have the reach, but can't, because of historical reasons, come to terms with the fact that they could actually impose a "Pax Americana". The US is not an empire, like Great Britain of old. We tried it once, during the Spanish-American War, and it did not work out for us. It's not our nature to rule and subjugate. Commerce is not empire, although some would like to bend the meaning of "empire" to include globalism and international commerce. The US looks after its interests, but it doesn't invade for profit. Not so IMHO, during the Spanish-American War, the US was not a world 'MegaPower'. No country since Imperial Rome has been so utterly and overwhelmingly powerful. No one nation or indeed any conceivable alliance can stand up to the US and survive if the US so wills it. As the Romans used to say, 'We are Rome, and Rome does as she pleases' America effectively rules much of the world in all but name. It has the power, influence, (cultural, financial and commercial), to bend the world to it's will if it so chooses. Within the next 10 years, the USA will have to decide on one of two courses of action. Grab the world by the throat, kick it's ass and order it to behave and pay due respect. or retreat into Isolationism. It's Americas 'world', it just needs the will to take it. ANdy

And, frankly, I hope she will. Hegemony by the strong and domination of the weak has been a fact of life for all of human history, and will continue to be so, despite what the constructivists and internationalists say. Just as I would prefer the British Empire over the Russian or the French, so to would I vastly prefer American hegemony over Chinese domination of a Muslim caliphate. It is the very cultural reluctance to dominate that makes the British and American hegemonies appealing. Civilisations that belive that the arbitary exercise of power for its own sake as being right and proper scare me.