Conquering for Peace and Wealth...

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
The singular problem with this whole shootin' match is that the USA is not an empire and the wall it has built and is building is not a military fortification but a component of immigration security. Our wall is more a symptom of xenophobia than of military insecurity.
You know we have been referred to as an Empire before the 20th century...

The concept of an American Empire was first popularized during the presidency of James K. Polk who led the United States into the Mexican–American War of 1846. In recent times the concept has been revived to refer to the sphere of influence of the United States by its critics.
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
You know we have been referred to as an Empire before the 20th century...

The concept of an American Empire was first popularized during the presidency of James K. Polk who led the United States into the Mexican–American War of 1846. In recent times the concept has been revived to refer to the sphere of influence of the United States by its critics.
Empires have emperors or some other monarch/ruler. I don't care what term a historian might use, the USA is not now nor has it ever been an empire.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
the USA is not now nor has it ever been an empire.
Just for your enjoyment, I found this short article about historians arguing over " American" What word to use... maybe Empire , maybe not or...

https://warontherocks.com/2015/08/is-america-an-empire/

Snip...

The use of the term “empire” has been getting out of hand since imperialism became a pejorative in late-19th century British politics.

Snip... empire...

As Elizabeth Cobbs has recently observed, this interpretation is already “verging on dogma” in the American historical profession.

It is a fun read and after you finish it you maybe more confused...
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
Just for your enjoyment, I found this short article about historians arguing over " American" What word to use... maybe Empire , maybe not or...

https://warontherocks.com/2015/08/is-america-an-empire/

Snip...

The use of the term “empire” has been getting out of hand since imperialism became a pejorative in late-19th century British politics.

Snip... empire...

As Elizabeth Cobbs has recently observed, this interpretation is already “verging on dogma” in the American historical profession.

It is a fun read and after you finish it you maybe more confused...
I'm not confused now. To me there are certain criteria for a nation to be called an empire and the USA doesn't have them. Simple as that. Historians like convenient labels and throw them around pretty casually. They don't mean anything.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
I'm not confused now. To me there are certain criteria for a nation to be called an empire and the USA doesn't have them. Simple as that. Historians like convenient labels and throw them around pretty casually. They don't mean anything
I think the word Hegemony or Hegemonic nation best describe us on the world stage... or maybe an Ephemeral Empire... ;)
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
The singular problem with this whole shootin' match is that the USA is not an empire and the wall it has built and is building is not a military fortification but a component of immigration security. Our wall is more a symptom of xenophobia than of military insecurity.
True that; the xenophobia part anyway. But to say "our" wall -- it's not really that, is it? Most U.S. citizens didn't specifically have an opportunity to approve or disapprove the building or funding of an expanded wall. Though they voted in the general election, the wall issue wasn't specifically parsed from each party's platform. Even if it had been, nothing in a party platform is binding for the winners of the election.

If instead a national referendum on an expanded wall were to take place, it likely would be killed. Why? Because everybody but the densest among us realizes that even a 25 ft. high wall can be easily hopped over using drone technology (in a matter of a few minutes, anywhere along the wall, even in cross-border adjacent cities). I'm not giving away any big secret that man-carrying drones are already in use in the military, and that nothing about the technology is too classified, too complicated (program screens are WYSIWYG), or too expensive for civilian (in particular criminal) applications.

Impenetrable 25ft. high wall? Pfft...It doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
But to say "our" wall -- it's not really that, is it?
Yes. It really is. If not, whose is it? We elect people and they do stuff in our name. Ergo that stuff is ours. You can do your usual hair splitting on your own dime.
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
Yes. It really is. If not, whose is it? We elect people and they do stuff in our name. Ergo that stuff is ours. You can do your usual hair splitting on your own dime.
Meh. The wall wasn't on the ballot. It's a legitimate hair to split.

Pot calling the kettle black, since obviously everybody splits hairs here. It's all good. Splitting hairs is exactly what's called for here. Simple views: "master proclamations" - "word bites" - complex issues reduced to truisms; are no legitimate goal.

And as far as this "dimes" thing goes, nobody is paying to post here. Explain.
 
Last edited:

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
Meh. The wall wasn't on the ballot. It's a legitimate hair to split.

Pot calling the kettle black, since obviously everybody splits hairs here. It's all good. Splitting hairs is exactly what's called for here. Simple views: "master proclamations" - "word bites" - complex issues reduced to truisms; are no legitimate goal.

And as far as this "dimes" thing goes, nobody is paying to post here. Explain.
Actually, sir. The wall was most definitely on the ballot. One of the presidential candidates spoke about it ad nauseum and he got elected. How soon we forget when we get bogged down in hair splitting and contrarianism.
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
since obviously everybody splits hairs here. It's all good. Splitting hairs is exactly what's called for here.
Splitting hairs is something that makes...uh this k-rap--discussions-- interesting for me.

Roll on everyone. I will back-fill when I feel that it is required. ;)
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
Actually, sir. The wall was most definitely on the ballot. One of the presidential candidates spoke about it ad nauseum and he got elected. How soon we forget when we get bogged down in hair splitting and contrarianism.
The wall was not on the ballot, saying it was doesn't make it so. Here's where you don't allow me to say that you mean simply candidates were either for or against the expansion of the wall.
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
The wall was not on the ballot, saying it was doesn't make it so. Here's where you don't allow me to say that you mean simply candidates were either for or against the expansion of the wall.
The diameter of the hair is approaching invisible. The wall was a significant issue in the election. Its proponent was on the ballot. Just wondering. This is a discussion group. Do you plan to discuss at some point or are you only going to pick nits and criticize other peoples' posts? You're boring the hell out of me.
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
Expansion??? 5 friggin' miles?
?? Whoever came up with "5 friggin miles" it's apparent that it's actually (per the very url provided) more like 700 miles that's planned.

Is there a question that either 5 or 700 miles constitutes an expansion? What?
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
?? Whoever came up with "5 friggin miles" it's apparent that it's actually (per the very url provided) more like 700 miles that's planned.

Is there a question that either 5 or 700 miles constitutes an expansion? What?
5 miles is far more narrow from 700. It's like casting a line into a pile of moss and gettin' hung up w/o pulling up a fish.
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
5 miles is far more narrow from 700. It's like casting a line into a pile of moss and gettin' hung up w/o pulling up a fish.
ok. Did somebody suppose the wall would only be expanded by 5 miles? I've not seen that anywhere.

(aside from that I'm not seeing an allegory between fishing line in moss and the border wall expanding by 5 or 700 miles. I'm just not sharp enough today...maybe pm me and explain it )
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
Did somebody suppose the wall would only be expanded by 5 miles?
You know there was a wall across most of the southern border before 2016. It was more like a fence, walls and other sections had a virtual wall with senors and alike.
 
Last edited:

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
You know there was a wall across most of the southern border before 2016. It was more like a fence, walls and other sections had a virtual wall with senors and alike.

They coulda' spread cow-patties, hog crap and horse-apples all across the border and saved a shit-load of... and it would enrich the soil.

;)
 
Top