I can't say it's all bad but it's definitely more bad than good...It also depends on what you consider "good" and "bad" seeing that all depends on your perspective but in mine it's more bad than good.

...good ol' repetition....good night lads

I think its slightly more good than bad, its mostly bad from a political standpoint, but from a scientific and cultural one it often makes more good than bad.  Obviously it is obsolete now but back in the day one of the few ways to facilitate large amounts of safe trade and knowledge echanging is through integrating neighbors econimically or through force.

can you do my homework sometimes too? haha

just kidding.

well let me point out my opinion.

it really has to depend on who's perspective you are talking about.

imperialism is bad when you are a target of imperialist expansion. but if you are to export your imperialist power, it is probably good to you.

morally, it is bad tho.

when japan invaded asia during ww2, we as targets of imperialism all agree to that it was bad and morally incorrect. on the other hand, we take pride of the glorous tang and han dynasties when japan, korea, central asian countries and a various other countries had to send tributes to us and were even under our rules (such as the turks in centrla asia). we think it was good.

I would say more good than bad in some instances, like the large, safe, and prosperous Roman and Chinese empires, but also more bad than good in instances like the Nazi and Soviet empires.

For that reason, I voted neutral

The New Imperialism Age that took place between 1875-1914 has had an important part in the formation of today's European Identity...

The worst legacy left by Belgium in Congo.

morally, it is bad tho.

Says who? In my opinion, might is right, survival of the fittest...and so on. I dont find imperialism or war to be immoral at all. In fact, I would go so far as to say that war is one of the most essential facets of human civilization, and one of its highlights. There is nothing more strakly human than people fighting for what they want or beleive.

Imperialism is good for the imperialist, so long as he does his job well (like the British for instance). In the long run, imperialism can be good for the conquered as well, especially if they were primitve previously. In the chort term, however, they definantly get the short end of the stick. THough again..who cares, might is right.

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.

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.

The only thing I like about imperialism is the fact that that's when people are proud of their nation...that's it. And dude, and American complimenting the British on their colonialism....times are changing

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).

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.

There is a way to live ambition with morals and respect for other human life. In my eyes I define ambition, and I believe in the equal chance of all human beings next to me. I can't understand how you can be satisfied with your own success if you deprieve everyone else from having a chance of their own. And dude, I am very open with what is right and wrong and of course I acknowldge this; culture will always differ, but; one universal code does exist: we all have the right to live. Through respect and mercy and an open mind, we can always find a common good. I do admire you in a way for being so honest and admitting to your gut instinct of "survival fo the fitest", and I could almsot fall to your philosophy of beleiving that if you are brilliant enough to control others, you have the right to and deserve the priviledge. However, I do have a heart, and I receive more satisfaction knowing I can help and make friends this way who will in return help me without a thought at the cost when the time comes. But it's not only for the future investment; I help because it is right. Like you stated; we simply having opposing ideologies, and I understand the reason you believe how you do is because the manner by which you were raised and the experiences you have lived; myself having been taught different aspects to life. We are both right in our own eyes.

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

"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." -Myself

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).

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.

ps: Hey dude, I pray not all Americans are as conservative as yourself but I don't believe I'd be wrong in saying that you and Hitler would set good company! Might to conquer the world while you're at it eh? Just remember there are more of us than you, and some of us are pretty big

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).

As Friedrich der Große said "Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments"

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.

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.

...not according to the trends through most of human history. Foreign policy is more often war or economic sanctions; humanitarianism in the government has only existed for a few centuries at most. Do you think the Romans or the colonial Europeans ever visited another country, offered aid, and then left as a benevolent philanthropist? Foreign policy does not now, nor has it ever, mostly consisted of the things you speak of.

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.

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.

We both agree that giving aid to a hostile regime will not solve the crisis. But, you say that to stop the dictator from ever arising you should  provide aid early on, therefore preventing the crisis. However you cannot seriously expect to preempt every crisis. Most of the time, you wont even be aware that there is a crisis until the dictator is already in power, or the nukes have already been built.

Take Imperial Japan for instance. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries Japan, under its ancient hereditory monarch (whose reign could certainly not have been pre-empted by aid), began a viscous policy of expansion in the Pacific. The nation did this to secure raw materials for its industry, and lebensraum. There is no possible way for humanitarian actions (building schools, providing food, etc) to have solved the crisis. Japan was going to continue expanding until someone forcibly stopped her, or threatened to (though she clearly disregarded such a threat in the end, requiring actual war to halt her imperialism).

In that instance, as in most in human history, either force or the threat thereof were neccessary tools for successful foreign policy.

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.

[Herodotus=quote]However you cannot seriously expect to preempt every crisis. Most of the time, you wont even be aware that there is a crisis until the dictator is already in power, or the nukes have already been built. [/quote]

The crisis always begins at home. The moment we have poor foreign policy, (and I have defined proper foreign policy above) is the moment such a dictator will arise. We can be aware a crisis is coming when our foreign politics have turned to steal, if ever it is a surprise there is a crisis there is something seriously wrong with what is said to be our foreign policy and what it actually is. If things are done properly, these situations should be foreseeable.

You have made a good point with japan. My only argument is the Japanese imperialistic crisis was also forseeable except all western powers at the time had the same policy (more or less) which doesn't help so it is evident they wouldn't have reacted in a way I'd support. If Japan had never been taunted by European powers, so had never been threatened by them,  they would never have been inspired to become a super power of the same style because in the end, the true reason the Japanese empire ever began was to defend themselves and rival the west. It is therefore the fault of the European expantionist policy which caused this, so in the end, poor foreign policy. Do you see what I'm saying?

Lebensraum was certainly an issue I'll give you that, but isn't the whole point of it is to become a stronger and more ressourceful nation? In essence, a stronger and more ressourceful nation in order to rival the west? Japan had never been forced to acquire this lebensraum before European and American imperialism forced itself upon Japan's doorstep. Lebensraum was just an excuse justifying Japan's agression when in fact it was triggered by the west. The population had always been increasing; and until that point, the Japanese were content to remain on Japan.

Japan's history reflects the reaction all nations would have taken had they the chance to face european imperialism; or as I'll put it, Europe's foreign policy. Also, have you ever read any record of Japanese settling on the continent? They weren't just there for breathing room, they were there to conquer before being conquered.

This is the way I interpret what happenned. Now my friend, I do not believe we can fully declare one policy "right" over the other, but at least give me that humanitarian aid should always be the first option before military action, and as I still see it, the principle one.

It must however be done right. A 1 month warning with 1% the aid a people needs to the completly wrong people in the country (i.e to the rich instead of the poor) is not the chance I'm talking about. It is obvious that in a situation like this, where no results are achieved, the public  will be favourable to the military out of having the wrong conception fo what truly happenned. They would believe a real humanitarian effort was commenced and that it failed, when in fact the aid was never there.

1- Enough time.

2- Enough aid.

3- to the right people.

4- Properly publicitized.

Tell me, have I at least slightly opened your conservative eyes to other options? 

The Japanese population had, of course, been perpetually expanding for millenia, but the rate of expansion drastically increased during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The purpose of gaining lebensraum was not to increase Japans' international power, or check that of the Europeans: there was no goal other than solving the, otherwise unstoppable, self-defeating process of overpopulation.

I have never contested the notion that humanitarian aid is a viable facet of foreign policy. My sole point is that in some, and in fact most, international crises the use of force, or threat thereof, is absolutely neccessary. My argument throughout the thread has been that imperialistic policies are quite justified, and often very neccesary and effective. Have you seen the light of realpolitik?

What do you mean; "the purpose of lebensraum is not to increase international power"???? So what do you call Nazi expansion into Russia? That is where the original term of lebensraum derieves, and the Nazies weren't just there to solve over crowding in Germany, they were there to create a greater Deutscher Reich; which is by all means the most international power building action which can be taken. The Nazies also justified their assault for lebensraum when it is clearly evident they also wanted to become a more powerful nation in the process and believed they had the right to dominate over many peoples. Lebensraum does not include tyrannic policy towards others in any case, and so one cannot mix the two. Why then did the Japanese massacre millions of innocent chinese civilians?

The true purpose of Japanese military expansion was to counter that of Europe in order to remain independant, thus it was for greater international power. Lebensraum is simply a means to achieve this. You still haven't answered my question; can you find any documents which indicate Japanese settling on the mainland?

Like so many before you, you have completly forgotten my explanations of crisis solving before they even arise. With that attitude you have just repeated to me, there always will be a crisis. I don't think you've understood anything I've said. Yes I am familiar with realpolitik;  I don't see the point you're trying to make. Secret alliances and intricate politics, yes? What with it? 

And imperialism is justifiable for what? Necessary for what? Remain in the upper class? Steal all richs for yourself? Murder all those who work for themselves and not uniquely you?

Dude, that's just wrong. Even if you don't have a heart, having a friendly foreign policy is more practical in the sense that military costs are low and many nations are willing to work with you and even help you if the need ever arose. Help meaning military support and more commonly on the day-to-day basis; economic deals and trade agreements. I believe this policy to be more effective and more acceptable to anyone who was taught morals as a child.

Herodotus do you have a msn chat line address? I would very much enjoy having a more realtime conversation with you. (Quicker interaction of ideas.)