3 ms·

> Anyone saying "China also wants an empire" or "Empire is inevitable" is categorically wrong Ridiculously naive. China wants an empire to match or surpass the

> Anyone saying "China also wants an empire" or "Empire is inevitable" is categorically wrong Ridiculously naive. China wants an empire to match or surpass the US. I don't necessarily blame them for that in and of itself -- I'd blame them more for being non-democratic -- but it's comical to act like China doesn't want an empire as it goes about building outposts in the South China Sea. > The United States operates an imperial arrangement within its continental territory, followed by a second imperial core in the form of the Five Eyes alliance, followed by a system of vassal states in the guise of allies such as the military domination systems of Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East This is also incredibly silly. Sure, categorizing military bases all over the world as imperial is reasonable, but looking at it as "military domination" over all those countries is simplified tankie reasoning. If it was just a matter of militarily dominating those countries, the US wouldn't frequently push for allied countries to strengthen their own independent militaries, as it has. And what does "imperial arrangement" over the continental US even mean? Sure, manifest destiny was empire building, but at this point it's largely a singular nation with a federal system.

itsoktocry 4y ago
>If it was just a matter of militarily dominating those countries, the US wouldn't frequently push for allied countries to strengthen their own independent militaries, as it has. Oh yes, the US has military bases in 80 countries around the world in the interests of the "host" countries, and not for strategic military reasons. As soon as the hosts catch up on military spending, the US will leave, no doubt! Imagine believing this for one second.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  I never said that. Obviously it's for the US' own interests, but it's also mostly based on alliances and shared interests, rather than "domination", which is why they want their allies to also have strong militaries. For example, the reason the Philippines is now allowing the US to establish semi-permanent bases on its territory is obviously because it's more worried about China in the South China Sea. The US military is simply the lesser of the two evils from the Filipino perspective. (And of course it helps that so many Filipinos have positive feelings towards the US)
MichaelZuo 4y ago
It's probably more realistic to believe that neither countries really want to be world hegemon, or at least to bear all the responsibilities such an arrangement implies. The hardliners may fantasize about the benefits of world hegemony, and conveniently ignore the downsides, but in reality there's much less enthusiasm in pursuing such a goal than often boasted about. For example, when the Cold War was already over in 1991, even Bush Sr. gave a big speech in Ukraine to emphasize that they really shouldn't rush to break up the Soviet Union.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  > It's probably more realistic to believe that neither countries really want to be world hegemon, or at least to bear all the responsibilities such an arrangement implies. As an American I'd say the US has very mixed feelings about this, but isn't 100% opposed. You're right that the US doesn't exactly want to be world police, not most Americans anyway. That said, there's definitely a certain sentiment of, "if not us, then who?" and seeing acting as world police to be the lesser evil. Like in principle, Americans want to be somewhat more isolationist (especially militarily), particularly since the Iraq war was such a disaster, but then something like the Syrian civil war happens and many Americans feel an obligation to help out the 'right' side. The whole "shining beacon on a hill" thing is ingrained into the American mindset. Even people on the left within American politics who are self-critical of US history just have the stance of, "well, the US hasn't really behaved like that in the past, but it should".

itsoktocry 4y ago

>If it was just a matter of militarily dominating those countries, the US wouldn't frequently push for allied countries to strengthen their own independent militaries, as it has. Oh yes, the US has military bases in 80 countries around the world in the interests of the "host" countries, and not for strategic military reasons. As soon as the hosts catch up on military spending, the US will leave, no doubt! Imagine believing this for one second.

TulliusCicero 4y ago
I never said that. Obviously it's for the US' own interests, but it's also mostly based on alliances and shared interests, rather than "domination", which is why they want their allies to also have strong militaries. For example, the reason the Philippines is now allowing the US to establish semi-permanent bases on its territory is obviously because it's more worried about China in the South China Sea. The US military is simply the lesser of the two evils from the Filipino perspective. (And of course it helps that so many Filipinos have positive feelings towards the US)

MichaelZuo 4y ago

It's probably more realistic to believe that neither countries really want to be world hegemon, or at least to bear all the responsibilities such an arrangement implies. The hardliners may fantasize about the benefits of world hegemony, and conveniently ignore the downsides, but in reality there's much less enthusiasm in pursuing such a goal than often boasted about. For example, when the Cold War was already over in 1991, even Bush Sr. gave a big speech in Ukraine to emphasize that they really shouldn't rush to break up the Soviet Union.

TulliusCicero 4y ago
> It's probably more realistic to believe that neither countries really want to be world hegemon, or at least to bear all the responsibilities such an arrangement implies. As an American I'd say the US has very mixed feelings about this, but isn't 100% opposed. You're right that the US doesn't exactly want to be world police, not most Americans anyway. That said, there's definitely a certain sentiment of, "if not us, then who?" and seeing acting as world police to be the lesser evil. Like in principle, Americans want to be somewhat more isolationist (especially militarily), particularly since the Iraq war was such a disaster, but then something like the Syrian civil war happens and many Americans feel an obligation to help out the 'right' side. The whole "shining beacon on a hill" thing is ingrained into the American mindset. Even people on the left within American politics who are self-critical of US history just have the stance of, "well, the US hasn't really behaved like that in the past, but it should".