Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Imperialistic History of the United States

  1. Jul 9, 2005 #1
    "you can bet your sweet apples that they are natural warriors"

    This comment, followed by a list of Middle Easter conflicts in another thread on this forum really pissed me off. Its incredibly misleading and very racist too.

    The United States for instance has been involved in over 140 armed conflicts in its short 230 year existence.

    United States Military Action From 1898 to the Present (note that the list is also incomplete)

    (Note 1.) This list through 1975 is reprinted with few changes from: US Congress. House. Committee on International Relations [now Foreign Affairs]. Subcommittee on International Security and Scientific Affairs. Background Information on the Use of US Armed Forces in Foreign Countries, 1975 Revision. Committee print, 94th Congress, Ist session. Prepared by the Foreign Affairs Division, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Washington, US Government Printing Office, 1975. 84 p.

    Last edited: Jul 9, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 9, 2005 #2


    User Avatar

    I'm sorry...how many of these wars were in the U.S.?
    Although...some of my ancestors WERE natural born warriors..I wouldn't consider most Americans "warriors" at all..well, unless you want to consider wars over who gets the remote control.
  4. Jul 9, 2005 #3
    Almost none of these actions after 1900 resulted in the expansion of US territory. A bit misleading to refer to this as an "Imperialistic History." Not all military action is imperialistic.
  5. Jul 9, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Ah yes, 10,000th time this has been posted.
  6. Jul 9, 2005 #5
    I would say any military action on foreign soil can be deemed imperialistic - expansion of the U.S. sphere of influence is still expansion
  7. Jul 9, 2005 #6
    :zzz: I guess we could entitle it 'America discovers placing dictators who are sympathetic' then.

    America discovered a long time ago that creating unofficial spheres of influence was more profitable without all the problems of making sure their constitution was applied in any external territory or having to pay for things like welfare.

    Plus you had the benefits of being able to invade if the ruler or population became unruly. :wink:
  8. Jul 9, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I'd say you're intentionally misusing the word 'imperialistic' because of the negative connotations it carries. You can say that any military action on foreign soil might be considered imperialistic, and sure, it might be if you take the broadest possible consideration of what that would mean. What you cannot say is that all military action on foreign soil is bad. Nonetheless, you want to imply that all these actions were bad, so you call them 'imperialistic.' According to you, stopping a genocide is an act of imperialism. Come on, Max. The US has done plenty of legitimately wrong things in its past. Stick with those.
  9. Jul 9, 2005 #8


    User Avatar

    That's why the US invented such things as cruise missiles, so the armchair warriors could fight wars from the luxury of their comfortable chairs using their remote controls :biggrin:
  10. Jul 9, 2005 #9
    WOW ok chill out, calling the U.S. imperialistic wasn't even the point of this thread bad title get over it

    the point was to show that the u.s. has been involved in many many many many armed conflicts, contrasting to the middle eastern list in the other thread

    http://www.gandhara.com.au/afghan_table.html [Broken]

    There it is for reference.

    P.S. I don't believe the U.S. has ever gone to war to stop genocide. The U.S certainly stopped the genocide in Kosovo but it side stepped Africa entirely. I can't make an intelligent suggestion to what the motivation is, but I don't believe the betterment of humanity has anything to do with it.


    Main Entry: im·pe·ri·al·ism
    Pronunciation: im-'pir-E-&-"li-z&m
    Function: noun
    1 : imperial government, authority, or system
    2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>

    Read that again: Broadly - the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  11. Jul 9, 2005 #10


    User Avatar

    IMO wars should be settled by the leaders of the countries in dispute being equipped with clubs and locked in a large room together and kept there until there is a resolution. I suspect there would be an awful lot less wars. :approve:
    Somehow I doubt G W Bush would be in politics :biggrin:
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 9, 2005
  12. Jul 9, 2005 #11
    Don't worry the job is near complete. Our sphere of influence includes the entire planet Earth, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, yoUranus, Neptune, Pluto, and a goodly part of the Oort cloud. We'll skip Venus and Mercury, a little to hot for our liking and in the wrong direction; that is unless oil is discovered.

  13. Jul 9, 2005 #12


    User Avatar

    Isn't the reason Venus is so hot something to do with a runaway greenhouse effect? Perhaps they had a civilisation with politicians like ours at some time. :bugeye:
  14. Jul 9, 2005 #13
    Mike Tyson for president? :yuck:
  15. Jul 9, 2005 #14


    User Avatar

    Not with his recent fight record :rofl:
    It would be good fun though. You could vote for the person you really hate so they get a 'clubbing' :biggrin:
  16. Jul 9, 2005 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    So you counteract a misrepresentation of one nation's history by misrepresenting another nation's history? How does that help things? Are we just going to continue running around in circles screaming at each other "No, your country is worse!?"

    If you believe that, why go and do the same thing?
  17. Jul 9, 2005 #16
    you're missing the point, I didn't go and say "The people of the United States are natural warriors! Just look at all this fighting they've done!"
  18. Jul 9, 2005 #17
    Well since your're being nice (I think) I'll agree. I'll encourage you to think about minimizing governments so they cause the least damage.

  19. Jul 9, 2005 #18
    It's incredible how a simple message from MaxS immediately triggers the defensive reflex and let people think how they can discredit the writer without having to discuss the core of the matter. He just says that we have no right to see Middle East people as "natural warriors" having the bloody history we have, in the US AND in Europe. And he's right. No need to try to sideline the discussion on semantics again.
  20. Jul 9, 2005 #19


    User Avatar

    here here :approve: Apologies for my little jaunt to Venus :blushing:
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 9, 2005
  21. Jul 9, 2005 #20
    i think that's the document (or one like it) that inspired bill blum's awesome masterpiece "killing hope" which has a chapter on each US military or CIA operation since WWII.

    i would also add this link:
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2005
  22. Jul 9, 2005 #21
    Smedley Butler on Interventionism
    -- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC. [note -- Smedley Butler is one of a handful of men who have recieved the Congressional Medal of Honor TWICE]

    War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

    I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

    I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

    There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

    It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

    I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

    I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

    During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
  23. Jul 10, 2005 #22
    A remarkable general and Republican politician.
  24. Jul 10, 2005 #23
    to me he's definetely a forgotton hero of the united states, for the statement he made to congress - it is sadly ignored today, but I believe it applies very well now as it did then.
  25. Jul 10, 2005 #24
    I believe he is being featured in a new 'documentary'/'activist' film The Corporation where his honesty was cited as an example over the abuse of government power.
  26. Jul 10, 2005 #25
    No THAT was funny, though it was a little bit far fetched to speak about civilization. I was writing about the first, immediate reaction on MAxS post.

    BTW this spelsjekk is graet!
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook