Imperialism

And dude, and American complimenting the British on their colonialism....times are changing.

No, I just think for myself...dont need to fall into national cliches.

When it comes to the point where individuals like me or you are robbed of the opportunity to live their potential because of unecessary power hungry swines imposing their unjustified rule upon them, that is where I put my foot down.

Unjustfied rule...who says what is justified? Apparently you (as the native) would hold a different opinion of what is just from the power hungery swine (imperialist).  Neither OPINION can be wrong so, do you see the inherent impossibility of saying that an action is ethically unjusitified, whatever the action? What you have to say is that you yourself think it is immoral, but that you understand that the swine has the right to do what he pleases, and all you can do is try to stop him, if you so choose.

War is the lowest form of politics. There is no excuse for murder, and no need for imperialism. But, as you say, survival of the fittest is only in human nature, and we can't deny people's right to live. It doesn't have to come through imperialism tho.

War is inseperable from politics. How is killing enemies in a war any different from emplacing an embargo that starves civilians? Without war, or policies of embargo and the like that cause equal devestation, politics mean nothing. Do you think that the word of the U.N to N. Korea or Iran or wherever would mean anything if there was no threat of retaliation?

Yay, go social Darwinism

I assume you being sarcastic. However, indeed hurrah for social darwinism.

I just spent one hour responding to this and then the site froze on me. Not for the first time.

Have faith Herodotus; I will rewrite tomorrow and give a proper response...

My brother was telling me of that, I'll take note to get it; and I usually also copy in the eventuality that the site freezes but it was 12:30am and it slipped my mind. Isn't it fun when you should go to bed early but stay up late inspired to write something and then it's deleted Fun times Anyways I'd also like to apologize for the slow responce, I have been busy of late but I'd still like to defend my points, and so here is what I have to say:

I didn't mean to offend my friend I just found it amusing since it is well known how Americans are proud of their independence from Brittish rule and make a point that they liberated themselves of this colonialism, which they claim to have been unjust. I am glad you set aside stereo types and think for yourself.

You are right in saying that none of us has the right to claim what is truly justified seeing how we all set with various perspectives, that I cannot argue. However, I believe it to be our duty as civilized people to still attempt  to collect as much knowledge concerning the situation at hand and  thus; understanding of these various perspectives in order to make the fairest judgement in our capability. Now observing an imperilistic might take control of a defenseless country for mercantilistic purposes paying no reguards to the suffering it will cause; this known as imperialism, I deem to be unjust. The only excuse for such an incursion by a power would consist of doing such for pure self defensive objectives, and only then at certain conditions. As noble as that may sound, there is a far better defense than bringing the iron fist of war to the gates of one's enemies. The simple act of cooperation creates a far more effective peace than that of intimidation; if there is no threat, no defense is required in the first place. A few kind words go farther than one might expect. Now back to your original commentary, yes I believe conquest for the purpose of conquest to be immoral. If you believe otherwise than mayhap you have not experienced enough injustice. I will not jump to conclusions however seeing how you may agree yet simply be arguing that some people's right can be other people's wrong and vice versa which is a fact I recognize and accept.

You are right in saying the imperialist has the liberty to do as he chooses; however tyrannic it may be, but he also has the right to accept the brute and violent conciquences of his actions and the eventual retaliation to his rash policy which in the end, will always come. Remember that.

I am not saying war is not political, I am merely stating it is the lowest possible form politics can take. Placing an embargo on adversaries with the outcome of starving civilians is also a shameful form of politics; I never stated otherwise, you are putting words in my mouth! Any form of political torture for persuasive purposes is unjust and is no less criminal than warfare.

And what do you mean; without these aspects politics are nothing? I concede that a part of politics consists of different political factions pocessing various ressources with which they may influence the negotiations at hand but I deny military might should be listed among these. Resolution can be found without this factour. There are always alternate solutions and methods with almost equal results. 

Concerning Iran and North Korea, these are military situations where past events may have led to these situations becoming as aggressive as they now are. These conflicts could have been resolved in advance with proper foreign policy; now I admit that it is easy to say this after the situation has surfaced, yet it remains true.  I also realize that no matter how well we attempt to keep the peace with everyone there will always be some form of corruption which will lead to such occurings (this being in our nature) and indeed political pressure is somewhat diminished without force intervension, but all I can say is there is no honour in war. More often than not, the innocent of any connection with the conflict are the most affected negatively during a war and those; to whom it was all directed, often escape unscathed. There is no honour in war; this you cannot contest.

I didn't mean to offend my friend I just found it amusing since it is well known how Americans are proud of their independence from Brittish rule and make a point that they liberated themselves of this colonialism, which they claim to have been unjust. I am glad you set aside stereo types and think for yourself.

No offence taken

You are right in saying that none of us has the right to claim what is truly justified seeing how we all set with various perspectives, that I cannot argue. However, I believe it to be our duty as civilized people to still attempt  to collect as much knowledge concerning the situation at hand and  thus; understanding of these various perspectives in order to make the fairest judgement in our capability. Now observing an imperilistic might take control of a defenseless country for mercantilistic purposes paying no reguards to the suffering it will cause; this known as imperialism, I deem to be unjust. The only excuse for such an incursion by a power would consist of doing such for pure self defensive objectives, and only then at certain conditions. As noble as that may sound, there is a far better defense than bringing the iron fist of war to the gates of one's enemies. The simple act of cooperation creates a far more effective peace than that of intimidation; if there is no threat, no defense is required in the first place. A few kind words go farther than one might expect. Now back to your original commentary, yes I believe conquest for the purpose of conquest to be immoral. If you believe otherwise than mayhap you have not experienced enough injustice. I will not jump to conclusions however seeing how you may agree yet simply be arguing that some people's right can be other people's wrong and vice versa which is a fact I recognize and accept.

We simply have a difference of opinion. I love the aspect of humanity that is, frankly, selfish. I am glad that people put their own interests above those of others; I suppose that is why I'm a staunch capitalist. You beleive that people's ambitions should be checked by morality and ethics, though you acknowledge that there is no universal code thereof. I can accept that philosophy. There is no use in battling over basic ideology.

You are right in saying the imperialist has the liberty to do as he chooses; however tyrannic it may be, but he also has the right to accept the brute and violent conciquences of his actions and the eventual retaliation to his rash policy which in the end, will always come. Remember that.

Exactly. The imperialist is free to conquer and the conquered is free to rebel. Both must realize the freedom of action of the other. There is equilibrium.

I am not saying war is not political, I am merely stating it is the lowest possible form politics can take. Placing an embargo on adversaries with the outcome of starving civilians is also a shameful form of politics; I never stated otherwise, you are putting words in my mouth! Any form of political torture for persuasive purposes is unjust and is no less criminal than warfare.

And what do you mean; without these aspects politics are nothing? I concede that a part of politics consists of different political factions pocessing various ressources with which they may influence the negotiations at hand but I deny military might should be listed among these. Resolution can be found without this factour. There are always alternate solutions and methods with almost equal results. 

Concerning Iran and North Korea, these are military situations where past events may have led to these situations becoming as aggressive as they now are. These conflicts could have been resolved in advance with proper foreign policy; now I admit that it is easy to say this after the situation has surfaced, yet it remains true.  I also realize that no matter how well we attempt to keep the peace with everyone there will always be some form of corruption which will lead to such occurings (this being in our nature) and indeed political pressure is somewhat diminished without force intervension, but all I can say is there is no honour in war. More often than not, the innocent of any connection with the conflict are the most affected negatively during a war and those; to whom it was all directed, often escape unscathed. There is no honour in war; this you cannot contest.

So long as there are multiple nations on the earth, there will be international relations and foreign policy. No nation can mantain total isolation forever. This aspect of politics will always require the use or at least threat of agression, as some crises are about overlapping interests that simply cannot be reconciled (Two populations fighting over the same land for instance).

You can have your kingdom on earth; I'll have mine in heaven

We'll see...

I didn't say there will not be international relations or no foreign policy. The only reason N-Korea wants isolation is for the reasons I mentioned in previous posts. I don't feel like you've fully understood the last part of my previous post, please reread if you don't mind.

My point is simply that some nations' differences are irreconcilable. Thus, without the threat of economic sanctions (which we agree can be as destructive as war) or war, foreign policy between such nations would be pointless. If both sides know that there is no recourse for their actions, why hold back? The overall point is that politics (which cannot be completely isolationist), if they are to be effective, must make use of war, or the threat of war (or economic agression).

Foreign policy isn't deciding how fast you should threaten war; it is how much foreign aid you should send.

Foreign policy isn't starving  foreign civilians; it's building schools.

Foreign policy isn't randomly taking out innocent weaker states, it's being a good influential leading nation on economic, pascifist and social levels.

Now, if you are saying this is how forerign policy should be, I would also disagree. Look at North Korea; governments around the world have sent aid, or at leats offered aid, to the country. Is the crisis resolved? No, most situations in foreign affairs require the threat of force, if not force itself. You should, in most situations, offer the carrot and the stick; but usually the carrot fails to do its job, and you have to resort to the stick. There is nothing unsual or wrong about that.

Alright, and who did they send the aid to? The dictator I suppose? Or maybe his wife at that?

They did not send any aid. When I speak of aid, I am referring to aid to the civilians to the point where a dictator does not come to power in the first place. The primary reason why these criminals come to power is because the people are poor and miserable enough to listen to them. Have a look why terrorists are supported in the middle-east. Often it can be foreign take over but more often it's just the people supporting a strong leader because they've lived through sh*t. Sending aid now to the civilians will not solve much you're right, becasue they aren't the ones in power. It also depends on what kind of aid. Long term aid and maybe they'd be able to bring down the man above, because they're unions would demand better living conditions. They'd also have to become aware of what's going on. When I speak of this foreign policy, I am speaking of what should have been done befroe the crisis even surfaced.

Yes this should be the favoured foreign policy. If we have these morals in mind starting now, we will solve many future crisis before they ever arrive.

I would really enjoy playing risk with you. You love the iron fist so much maybe I'd be doing you a favour in bringing it to you lol kidding kidding! I just find you have an interesting view of things.

While i concede to a certain point of view that imperialism has "improved" some countries, it was also a major catalyst of the Cold War, a conflict that almost ended in a nuclear holocaust.

In addition to this, Imperialism along with alliances, militarism, and nationalism (something which I associate with imperialism) resulted in WWI and WWII.  Although I necessarily agree with the general view that we progressed through imperialistic nations dominance, I don't think it was the imperialism itself that led the progression, but rather it was the fact that one country was so much stronger than another.

 While , as i said there are some examples which showed that Imperialism helped with the progression of modern society, i believe if there had been no imperialism at all we would have progressed much faster. 

I wonder how many direct conflicts would have occured if imperialism had been entirely avoided, and the mindset that goes along with it destroyed before it ever developed. If Imperialism was to dissappear off the face of the earth tomorrow, I think we would all be better for it, but it is by now an integral part of the world's cultures.