Talk:American imperialism/Archive 2

message: I moved the list of interventions on this page American_Empire#US_foreign_interventions to the Talk:List of United States military history events.  
It is awaiting someone (probably myself) merging it into the larger article, to complete the massive merger of several other pages which I did today.
I think having a comprehensive list in one place is incredibly beneficial.  Every wikiuser can focus their attention on this list, instead of smaller, less comprehensive lists scattered throughout wikipedia.  This small list has been the most tweeked and popular section of the entire American Empire article. I am excited to see how List of United States military history events now evolves.  As explained in the book The Wisdom of Crowds the more people that work on this list, the better the list will become.  Thanks to the work of hundreds of wikipedians, List of United States military history events appears to be the most comprensive list of foreign interventions ever written.  
If anyone fiercly disagrees to me moving the list of interventions to Talk:List of United States military history events, they can restore the information, now found here, waiting to be merged into the larger article.
Roosevelt Corollary & Monroe Doctrine
I kept the  Roosevelt Corollary and Monroe Doctrine on this page, by adding them to the  tag because I was facinated by the idea of the Roosevelt Corollary, which I had never heard of until the user added it recently. I think the Roosevelt Corollary and Monroe Doctrine are important elements in the history of American expansion abroad.  
These can be moved down to the "see also" section, if someone objects to them being in the  tag.  
Signed:Travb (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved list of interventions to larger article

message: Their book builds on neomarxist, postcolonial, and postmodern ideas and globalization theories, rooting itself in the work of Foucault, Deleuze, and Italian autonomist marxists.	Their work draws on the theories of Spinoza, Foucault, Deleuze, and Italian autonomist marxists.
I don't know what this sentence was talking about in the first place, so I don't know if the edit is factually correct or incorrect. I will contact User:DKalkin who probably wrote this sentence.  Travb (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above  --BobFromBrockley 17:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kewl.  Have a good day. Travb (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New edit

message: It contains multiple and contradicting arguments
The  was deleted, so I moved all the info here. Travb (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From the page

message: Done.  Unfortunately, the Smith talk is still not online, but I have my notes.  Kalkin 18:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Done 

message: Following through the same objective LOGIC of this and other related articles - should there not be a link to an article of the form 'white imperialism'?  I believe that previous conflicts and present current day conflicts warrant an analysis that is very much in the spirit of observing the similarities of America's undue influence throughout the globe and how this is concommittant with wars whost outcomes determine racial survival (for example, the Vietnam war, and also the Iraqi war - both of which have/had strong racial elements to them that determine the capabilities of respective peoples in regards to survival). Read the book "Towards land,work & power"  
NukeMason 19:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should there not be a link to some related article

message: I don't know why there's a "neutrality disputed" tag at the top of this page, but I would just like to record that I thought the page was fascinating, well informed, well written, and extremely balanced, representing the opposing sides of what is obviously a difficult and complex debate in what seemed to be a very even-handed way.  No doubt some people will feel that some bits can be improved, but it would be very hard to see a political bias towards either liberal or conservative views here, I would have thought.  So I would remove that tag.  Just the view of a passer-by, who has nothing to contribute himself!  --Doric Loon 21:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been up a while and no one's argued, I'm going to remove the tag. Kalkin 14:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: How about a section on the decline of the american empire as described by Gore Vidal and Morris Berman, among others? — goethean ॐ 15:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Decline

message: FOr advocates of american empire I am curious what the defining properties of american empire are and what properties would be need to be taken away for america not to be an empire. 
Mrdthree 16:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an appropriate subject for the article talk page, unless you're proposing some kind of change, but I'll reply on your talk page.  I'd ask anyone else interested to do the same, rather than getting into a political debate here.Kalkin 01:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I was curious if the arguments for imperialism were 'invertible' or 'fuzzy'. I mean does 'imperialism' truly have necessary properties such that if they were removed then imperialism is removed or is it a family resemblence concept-- what is the nature of the boundary between being imperial and not. Im not sure what the article impact is since I got one vote for ACGI with a qualified B,E. From your perspective it might be curious to find the properties that make a country imperialistic.Mrdthree 01:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll reply on your talk page.  Again, please take this there. Kalkin 01:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How might America not be an Empire

message: a world map of the countries which USA has occupied/protected via its military would explain better. past and present examples like Vietnam and Iraq etc. Idleguy 12:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Since Russian territorial aquistions in Central Asia (for example) are considered imperialist, I suggest we should apply same logic to Mexican-American War to avoid double standarts. With respect, Ko Soi IX 17:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexican-American War 

message: I made a mistake in editing, trying to redirect American_empire to American_Empire
Those two pages seem to be different. Why is that?
80.229.242.179 19:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mistaken edit 

message: I excised the whole legacy section, as I tried to edit out the original research and blatently false facts and was left with essentially Cuba has a represive government and no clear idea of how that's connected to American Imperialism there. WilyD 21:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legacy

message: It just seems that this and other pages are intentionally biased against America.
Nuetrality tags should definatly be added.
*This isn't a problem on this page, it's actually quite good.  If you have a problem with some specific issue, you should identify this issue and discuss it with other editors, or fix it yourself. WilyD 13:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-americanism? 

message: I added a new picture that shows American military intervention since 1950s as well as U.S. itself, I hope it helps. User:Daniel_Chiswick 16 April, 2007
:I don't quite get the picture.  What counts as an intervention?  Chile is highlighted clearly because of funding rebel groups.  Yet, Cuba is not when the US was also funding groups there (Bay of Pigs).  Why aren't Taiwan (heavy US involvement in the 1950's) and former Soviet Georgia (US involvement in 2001-2002) and Kuwait (Gulf War I) highlighted?  Not to mention the coup of '53 and the failed US rescue of hostages in Iran, Albania in the 50's, Greece in the 60's the 70's, Zaire in the 60's, Germany in the 60's and a bunch of other places.Hoshidoshi 19:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New picture

message: The Mexican-American War should be mentioned somewhere as this is the first time where America begins to expand (militarily at least). Zachorious 16:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mexican-American War]] 

message: The quotes section seems a little ridiculous.  Much of it seems like anti-American masturbation.  I'd suggest limiting it to 4 or 5 meaningful quotes on the topic.. if not delete the section entirely.  Seriously, what does a quotes section possibly add to the quality of a wikipedia article? --unsigned
:I again moved all of the quotes to wikiquote. 
:see: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/American_Imperialism
:After being accused of "vandalism" for doing the same thing and explaning it last week.  I support the quotes, and think almost all of them are relevant (except the Bush quotes), but they better belong on wikiquote then here. 68.89.128.160 22:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: From the article: "The following list appears to show increased military activity by the U.S. since the end of the Cold War. Published by current affairs writer and novelist Arundhati Roy as an opinion piece in the Manchester Guardian (10/23/01), she writes, "Here is a list of the countries that America has been at war with - and bombed - since the second world war:" China (1945-46, 1950-53), Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954, 1967-69), Indonesia (1958), Cuba (1959-60), Vietnam (1961-73), the Belgian Congo (1964), Laos (1964-73), Peru (1965), Cambodia (1969-70), Nicaragua (the 1980s), El Salvador (the 1980s), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-99, 2003-07), Bosnia (1995), Sudan (1998), Yugoslavia (1999), and Afghanistan (2001-07).Arundhati Roy, "'Brutality smeared in peanut butter' Why America must stop the war now." Guardian Unlimited 10/23/01. From this, one can calculate (however, Roy did not) that the years 1947-49, 1955-57, 1974-79, 1990 and 2000 were the only peaceful ones. 73% of the years, from World War II's end until 1989, the U.S. was militarily intervening somewhere. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 (not counting conflicts like Colombia where governing elites request help against rebellious subpopulations) the U.S. was actively militarily intervening in a foreign country at least 88% of the years into 2007. (However, many of these claimed wars with bombings, like the claimed war with China in 1945-46 or the claimed war with Indonesia in 1958, are not found in the Congressional Research Service report "Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798 - 2004."RL30172:   Note, removing China and Indonesia from her list only increases the disparity in U.S. military interventions before and after the Cold War. However, such variations from officially published U.S. government information may cast doubts on her claims, for those so inclined, especially since she lists no sources.)
From Roy's list, it could be argued, by those so inclined, (however, Roy did not) that the U.S.S.R.'s existence does not explain the U.S. pattern of war making, except negatively, as a deterrent. What the U.S. may have faced all along is a series of nationalist insurgencies -- for want of a better explanation covering both periods, during and after the Cold War. These were against U.S. acquiring natural resources by political device, colonialism by proxy, whereby the U.S. organizes and arms elite minorities in those countries, who then let U.S. companies and military in. Soviet use of the same device, in this view, was largely reactive. Maybe the nearly inevitable insurgencies against the elites, and U.S. or Soviets, were (and continue to be for the U.S.) linked out of necessity, with religion or political ideology being only secondary. Mere practical necessity explains much. Soviet advisors helped set up the Kuomintang who then allied with the U.S. when Japan threatened. Ho Chi Minh patterned his Vietnamese constitution on the U.S. until turning to the Soviets and Chinese for aid against the U.S. Only immediate, practical necessity explains such apparently fundamental shifts in ideology. (However, it can be argued, again by those so inclined, that this is a dubious theory, since wars such as the Korean and Vietnam wars were enormously expensive and studies of the resource curse show that having natural resources is harmful for economic growth, until one remembers the "Domino Theory" used to justify so much U.S. military intervention at that time. However, that is an ideologic theory which does not fit well with supposed wars for natural resoruces. Also such does theory does not expalin why not relatively weak but wealthy nations with abundant natural resources ,such as Canada and Autralia, has not been invaded in order to plunder them. Also, some research shows, to the contrary, that the fall of U.S.S.R. was accompanied by a decline in total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, and the number of refugees and displaced persons.Lotta Harbom and Peter Wallensteen (2005) Armed conflict and its international dimensions, 1946–2004, Journal of Peace Research 42(5), pp. 623-635Measuring systemic peace, Center for Systemic Peace, 30 October 2006, accessed 18 February 2007)"
:First, much of this massively violates Wikipedia:No original research. Second, an unsourced opinion piece by a novelist is at best a doubtful source. Third, if including such argumentation, both sides should be included, as per above. If you argue that there is further argumentation, then that should be added, instead of simply deleting opposing views.Ultramarine 21:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roy's list 

message: This map should be removed immediatly.  Never have these countrys ever wanted to be in a "American Empire".  This is article is totally an american made article, and its extremly biased
:
:This map?  What does your comment "Never have these countrys ever wanted to be in a "American Empire". got to do with that map?  The map has a caption that clearly shows it is just illustrating the distribution of US bases.Zebulin 19:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, it is somewhat misleading.  Perhaps one could be drawn with just the bases represented, not entire countries.  For instance one might think all of Australia is a US military base.  BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 20:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather have such a map but of course I'm not sure if it would be orignal research to create such a map from the source document since it doesn't seem to specify the precise locations of the individual bases.Zebulin 05:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't you think the caption should say "countries under military occupation by the United states" if it were to convey that impression?  Do you think *every* map we might include in this article will somehow look like everything displayed must be ruled by the USA?  Do you think people form opinions on maps without reading the captions?  Also do you think this article is describing a theory of some sort of glorious US globe spanning empire?Zebulin 05:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: In any case I think the problem you are having may not be the map but rather the entire article.  The entire article seems to be making the leap that such bilateral relationships as agreements allowing the presence of a base somehow constitute an 'empire'.  If you find that an innocent map of which countries host one or more US bases seems to be suggesting such bases somehow constitute rulership of those countries, I daresay it is the article rather than the map which is responsible for suggesting such an absurd conclusion.Zebulin 06:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What is insulting about the map?  such a map could be made for any given country.  It's not like the map mentions or even hints at 'empire' anywhere.Zebulin 03:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I prepared the map myself from the given source!  It actually saddens me to see how many bases the US maintains so your assumptions about the map are grossly unfounded.  Nonetheless, I do want to see the intervention map returned to the article but I need help sourcing it.  So far I have started from the documentary "Why we fight" which the preparer of that map has said he consulted as it's source.  I think if I can find either an alternative source or an online transcript of the documentary somewhere we can put the intervention map back in with it's sources cited and even use it as the main picture.  I'm also hoping to find location information on US bases detailed enough (working from nearest city listed in source currently) so that the map of US base distribution can display according to individual base locations rather than just by countries hosting bases.Zebulin 01:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the map is not that it's lying. Those a countries with US military bases. The thing is, the map is right at the top of a page named "American Empire", it's one of the first thing you see in this article and when I saw it the first thing I thought was "Would Norway be a part of the American Empire, if it's considered one?!". Of course, after  a closer inspection I saw that this was not the case, Norway only had American military bases. But having it at the top of the page, gives, when only giving it a quick look, the impression that all those countries are part of an "American Empire". My suggestion is to move the map down to the part of the article about military bases. 81.225.4.84 21:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, there's gone eom time and I decided to move it. It's now further down in the article at the "U.S. military bases abroad as a form of empire" 81.227.124.220 (Same guy as 81.225.4.84) 18:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: :What exactly is the point of this article? It reads like a historical thesis, not an encyclopedia article. Also, the title is misleading, this isn't about the United States actual empire, more to discussing the philosophy behind the term "American Empire". Wouldn't this be properly titled "American Imperialism"? - MichiganCharms 23:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is clear that 'American Imperialism' would be a more accurate title given the content of the article.  Is there any reason not to change the name at once?Zebulin 04:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point? 

message: Why are people making articles on things that do not exist? There is no "American Empire." You can argue that it is a certain type of philosophy, and thus, like say existentialism or nihilism, it exists as an abstract thing or concept, but in truth it is simply one big POV. This seems to me to be the biggest breach of Wikipedia's stance against POV (as it is an entire article) and yet the most ignored. The USA is not an "empire," no matter how many people have to stretch and reinterpret the term to make it fit. It is not an empire in practice nor in concept. John 23:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes the article sucks and has no justification for existing.  No it's not even remotely biased towards the US.  Either someone who believes that hasn't read the article or is trolling.  Just check out the sources.  Do the sources that try to paint the US as some sort of empire seem even remotely pro-US to you?  Do the sources that *deny* the US is any sort of empire seem remotely anti-US to you?  The premise of the article is about as anti-US as they come.  Unless of course you think modern imperialism would be a wonderful wholesome thing.Zebulin 06:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An article called "American Empire" should relate to the only time America actually held an empire... unless someone rewrites this whole article it should be deleted as it is POV. Would make a nice dissertation but it's not encyclopedic. - MichiganCharms 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tempted to list this at AfD sometime soon.  Its unencyclopedic, written in a clearly anti-US POV, and largely original research.  I'm a little too busy to help guide this article to its deletion at the moment though, but if any user wanted to nominated it, I'd gladly chime in.  Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 06:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sad thing is, it is articles like this one that are responsible for the existence of conservapedia.org, which is quite wacky in its own rite. John 19:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article could be merged with Overseas expansion of the United States then have the POV parts of this article replaced with legitimate info in regards to American imperialism of the 19th Century and Manifest Destiny if anyone has the time and energy, I'd certainly contribute. Certainly thats what the title implies... I think we should use British Empire as the guide for what this article should be. 
-MichiganCharms 20:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is absolutely asinine 

message: :Ok... the article as is is non-encyclopedic, POV and is definitely an AfD candidate. However, to paraphrase The Six Million Dollar Man, "We can rebuild it, we have the technology". What I'm suggesting is that we merge the information on America's empire building contained in Overseas expansion of the United States and begin a process of removing the POV, unencyclopedic sections of this article, only keeping what is absolutely necessary and well sourced. Which should then be replaced with paraphrasing of the relevant info contained in Territorial acquisitions of the United States if not a full second merger. Now, I know this will take time and effort to accomplish but I'm willing to do it and I know there's probably a few others here with me on that. -MichiganCharms 01:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article contains little to no important NPOV stuff not found in the other articles.  Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally feel it should be abolished in its entirety, and not be merged with anything else. Why should American expansion be more special than any other nation's expansion? Surely, for every nation that has an article on Wikipedia, there is NOT daughter articles for EVERY said nation discussing their expansions. See my point? Abolish this. Jersey John 06:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken, but in the case of the US, there is an imperialistic angle and ever nation who possessed an empire has an article on it. And surely, it's notable if done right. The point is, American Empire is listed at several places as referring to the current USA, territories and the Philippines + Pacific Trust. There should be an article about that with American Empire as at least a redirect. - 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming there is an imperialistic angle is speculation at worst, personal observation at best. That does not in itself lend to having an article about it. The factuality behind the claim "there is an imperialistc angle" has not been established. It is your point of view. Jersey John 22:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a point of view, it's been taught to me as fact throughout 12 years of schooling and 4 of college, I've never even read a suggestion that taking of the Philippines, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc. was anything other then imperialistic. In fact, it's overly patriotic and POV to claim it wasn't such. As for Manifest Destiny and the Mexican American War, a rose by any other name. There have been books written, it's the commonly accepted idea. Hell, Teddy Roosevelt and the other leaders of the time were quite open about needing to build an empire. An article is more than justified. Unless of course you think the Hawaiians were being "liberated" from their own government. 
Seems like it's been agreed that the US had one. It's just about putting the proper title on it.
-MichiganCharms 19:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal 

message: I am coming to this discussion from the [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Empire] discussion.  As I said there, I think this article should be renamed to reflect the theorietical nature of the problem.  One big problem I see is that it is actually not NPOV.  For example, why do you have Max Boot and others who are pro-US empire under the section "US empire never existed.  My understanding of Max Boot, as reflected in this section, is that he feels strongly that a US empire is for the benifit of mankind in general.  He does not deny it.  And, except for the first statement by Donald Rumsfield (there should be another section on popular anti-imperialism in the US, as opposed to academic as well,I think) the rest of this section talks about people who have a pro-imperial viewpoint.
Also, the article does not seem to have a anti-empire position from the right, a la Pat Buchanan.  I was thinking about adding this kind of section, right wing views of empire, however, since I have entered the debate somewhere else, I don't want to be too bold, because I now also want to remove or rename the "US empire never existed" section. 
Any thoughts??  XinJeisan 01:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second school of thought: "US empire never existed" 

message: Personnality I am against deleting this article, it is an expression that is sometimes used as shorthand to describe that "American Sphere of Influence". The term Empire is often very loosely used and if we started deleting all topic with a title using loosely terms this would never end. However the article should emphasis on the idea it's just a loose term. Aside of this I'm curious about that map on overseas bases ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US-Bases-World-2002.png ). Could anyone please tell me what are the American bases in France? I've checked the article on American bases but couldn't find the ones in France and I thought former American bases in France were now disafected.Matthieu 18:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Empire? Deletion? Conditional terms?

message: Cites blogs and states dubious claims as facts. Sourced arguments of the opposing side are removed without explanation.Ultramarine 00:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could equally well argue that your comparisons are not relevant. No double standard please. You also removed the sourced arguments regarding inflation without explanation.Ultramarine 00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to argue for a global central bank conspiracy theory, this is not the article. Please do not cite blogs like dailyreckoning.Ultramarine 01:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The claims of anonynmous Wikipedia editors are unverifiable and therefore not allowed as sources. You can certainly create an article about a global central bank conspiracy theory, if you have reliable sources, and maybe even link to it if having a reliable source claiming that the Federal Reserve is part of this conspiracy. However, the main focus in this article is not on this subject.Ultramarine 01:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If claiming that the CPI numbers are globally manipulated, then you are arguing for a global conspiracy theory. One of the main buyers of US bonds has been China, is this nation also part of the Empire? Ultramarine 01:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There is of course no inflation tax as shown in the source you removed. Most of the world's central banks agree that an inflation rate of about 2% is benign and manage their money supply according to this. This is completely voluntarily and openly stated and not due to some scheme by the US. The Chinese control their currency since they want to avoid currency flows caused by speculation and not investment, which can cause problem for a developing nations if they decide to leave, not due to fear of inflation. Regarding the increase in US debt to the rest of the world, many of claims are overstated. These capital flows to the US are voluntary, maybe stupid, but not due to coercion by an evil empire. A general worldwide increase in debt is not necessarily bad and not a new trend long-term, it simply reflects a more sophisticated financial system.Ultramarine 02:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The relationship between traditional money supply measures and inflation do not longer apply in today's more complex financial markets. Central banks simply target a prefered inflation rate and largely ignore these outdated measures. There is no law stating that old financial cycles must occur. Europe used to have famines at regular intervalls. Not anymore.Ultramarine 03:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I would ask our anon here to please read WP:NPOV.  Wikipedia is not an arbiter of fact, and when multiple relialble sources disagree over some concept, all notable viewpoints must be presented in a fair manner.  Further, an economic theory cannot be proven with the same certainty that a mathematical one can, or even a scientific one.  And so to present one economic point of view as fact is utterly inappropriate.  151.152.101.44 23:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Economic imperialism" 

message: I've deleted the economic imperialism section.  There were some good sources and encyclopedically-worthwhile facts but they do not belong in this article.  No citation actually used "American empire" or even, I believe, "imperialism" to describe the actions by the U.S.  The article already has a discussion of the possible economic roots of empire, above in the "Theories of Empire" section.  But it is too bloated and it is not the place to describe the economic debates of the global justice movement on top of the debates about military-oriented foreign policy.  Notice that the existing "Cultural imperialism" section describes the possible links of "cultural imperialism" to general "American empire", rather than going into the debates on cultural imperialism as such. Kalkin 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting stuff but wrong article 

message: "In one sense, the U.S. is not an empire, because it lacks a legal emperor, king, despot, or other hereditary head of state."
This is a half truth, as the President of the United States doesn't have to get the approval of Congress for many actions, which is why Bush was able to send more troops even though the Democrats had a house majority in December '06.  It's not necessarily that they don't have an emperor, it's just that the emperor can only rule for eight years.  Can someone (other than myself) PLEASE address this??
Cam 05:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs to be reworked 

message: I moved this intro to talk:
:American Empire is a term, often but not always derogatory, used to describe the historical expansionism and the current political, economic, and cultural influence of the United States on a global scale. It is said by some that America does not have an actual Empire, in that she has never had acquired any overseas territories, either through war or negotiation. However, many others believe that the adverse acquisition of Hawai'i, Alaska, other U.S. territories, and a civil war fought over unification were indeed quite imperial.
Most editors, particularly newbs and anons, work only on the first paragraph of an article. This sentence is an example of this.  This paragraph went from a awkwardly worded sentence, to a full unsourced paragraph over the past two months. Another editor attempted to remove some of this paragraph earlier, and I restored it. I shouldn't have.  All of the different POV's (and there are at least 3) can be expressed and explained later in the article. They don't need to be represented, uncited, in the first paragraph. Travb (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Especially in an article as controversial as this one, the introduction ought to be well made. I might make a little research into scholar sources and add references to give it more viability. Those POV's would also need to be edited so as to better inform the reader about the general issues and ideas contained in the article. In any case, we shouldn't keep to a single sentence as an introduction. --m3taphysical 08:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before the definition of empire was above, before it became the convoluted mess it is now. Travb (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "American Empire is a term relating to the historical expansionism and the current political, economic, and cultural influence of the United States on a global scale. As the definition of an empire still remains subject of debate among scholars, some have objected over whether the term can really be applied to the present-day United States. In contrast, many intellectuals and theorists argue that the United States' current influence and political behavior can be classified as imperialistic in one way or another. The subject has given rise to several theories, ranging from marxist anti-imperialism to more liberal opposition to U.S. policy."
Of course, it might need some further improvements, but I hope it will be suitable enough to introduce the current article. I will add some sources later. --m3taphysical 05:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro moved to talk