[TexanToTheCore]

Empire?

Have you goofballs lost your mind?

[BlueDragon]

Blithely tossing out the "empire" phrase, is a favorite among critics of the U.S. The accusation is overblown, so in reality, is not an accurate description. Wielding influence, does not equate with "empire", for that word holds connotations of British Raj. In light of that, "empire" has not been much of an American undertaking, save for the ham-fisted efforts in the Phillipines about a century ago.

One could in the past, honestly speak of mercantile empire, but that has NEVER been solely an American undertaking.

Today, the mercantile empire builders, are the State run enterprise such as comes from China & present day Russia.

If one wants to honestly speak of "empire" and hegemony seeking, than one needs to look honestly at the mercantile rulers of China today. They have become the running imperialistic dogs of capitalism, they so long accused the U.S., and the West as being.

The writer [Dmitry Shlapentokh] ends his piece talking about how China's expanding spending and influence in Africa will lead to China becoming wealthier in the long run, and how that isn't much noticed by many or most Americans;

"...the average Joe believes that the American system in both its internal and external applications works perfectly well. Just replace a "bad" president with a "good" one, whoever he or she will be, and the problems will be solved.

This is completely understood by those competing for the White House, and none of the presidential candidates will tell the public about losing the "checkbook" war to China and the implications of the defeat, which might be more serious in the long run than American defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan. "

Our defeats in Iraq & Afghanistan??? Huh? The writer is projecting his fondest hopes perhaps???

In formulating this post, I went and dug up a few of Dmitry's other articles. (there are about a hundred, and additionally a few books) In one article, entitled;

Does the World Want America to Leave Iraq?

after covering [and giving tepid support for] such things as the "Bush lied to lead the U.S. to war in Iraq" type of thinking, he finally gets to the truth of things here;

While the populace might be blind to the future, America's defeat in Iraq would have the most dire consequences not just for the U.S. but for global stability. In fact, even foreigners not predisposed favorably to the U.S. understand that a precipitous departure from Iraq would be nothing but disaster, not just for the U.S. but for many other countries of the world.

We see here in this earlier article, no mention of U.S. "defeat" in Iraq, but honest admission as to the need for continued American presence there, not for "empire", but for the long term interests of many nations.

So America is doing the itself, and the world a favor by being in Iraq, and Afghanistan, huh Dimtry? I mean, you made mention [in another article] that the Russians spoke favorably of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, in the beginning of that effort.
You know, my own father was right, way back when, back in the 1980's. The U.S. should not have been helping the "brave mujahadeen". We should have been helping the Soviets!

Dmitry! You talk a who-oole bunch. By doing so, you frequently end up talking out of both sides of your face, whether you realize that, or not.

[JasonC]

China wants an empire, and perceives US influence in the world as being one, it wants to dismantle that empire, and move in to the resulting power vaccum. That is the whole actual struggle presently going on in the world, in which Iran and Venezuela and the like, are merely pawns on the board.

Isolationists can pretend it isn't happening if they like, but it is how China and Russia and Iran, et al, see the world, and it drives their actions. If the US disengages they will grab things and consider it geopolitics as usual.