|Reviews for The Imperialist|
| OberleutnantVinz chapter 1 . 12/28/2003
I loved this essay so much I signed up just to write this 'short' review (I could take apart what I do and don't like but I would be here all day). Well, I don't much care for America itself (The so-called silent majority ought to not be so #$&ing silent instead of letting the imbecile leftists sound off so much and making me hate it.), but the concept here was just beautiful. I would gladly be a part of one of those regiments just to reclaim my home country. Ever since we lost Germany has gone completely insane, can't so much as speak out against anyone, as if the Reds had taken both halves and not just one. I think a majority of the population who are against the Iraq war are just jealous you guys didn't come here first and undo that so-called "salvation of the Old World."
I agree on the world itself being mostly leftist as well. It's simply for the reason as with religion, that most people want the easy way out. Pray and repent and you get into your respective heaven, pay lip service to the government and they give you everything free of charge.
I sort of disagree on the handling of the fundamentalist countries though. I think there should simply be groups dedicated to taking out the people that want to leave the country. They're going to run themselves into the ground eventually, and the highly devout are only going to be too eager to follow. You can take almost all of them without firing a shot, just let their leadership starve while the more modernised or secular are welcomed when fleeing from the country. (As you said cutting off resources, but everything should be done to make sure those that detest their religious/tribal governments don't end up suffering for something they can't control.) I guess you could say I prefer to minimalize any inconvenience someone may experience (Unless they deserve it), but without outright pandering to them like a true Leftist.
There's a game at .com that I have a nation on, and my nation flips between "Father Knows Best" and "Capitalist Paradise." and I think that would about sum my own views up, and indicate a few of the things I agreed upon in this essay. I have to admit I am one of those "furners" who underestimated Bush because of his lack of vocabulary. Whenever I thought of "The South" I thought of Queen's English-style vocab in that pleasant Southern drawl (One of the real reasons for the Civil War btw not slavery, the South still had ties to the GBE and the northerners didn't like them associating/trading with the English). Bush stammers and flubs anything with more than three syllables. It's entirely too easy to dismiss someone like that, and dismiss him we did. And when he turned out to be a "savant" well...It looks like most of my fellow Europeans are simply too proud to acknowledge they were wrong about his capabilities, and are continuing to use the same "dumb cowboy" jokes. (Oh yes one thing I definitely disagreed with. Nobody in their right mind thinks the French are the absolute best at most of that mentioned, except the "critics" whose opinions are at best, worthless. After all one of their 'artists,' Aquabouse, became famous for painting with cattle poo and selling those pictures to art fag tourists from the US at $300 a pop. This isn't me being crass in any way, just stating the obvious fact they push themselves so much in "culture" fields they make themselves seem the best to everyone else. There's true arrogance there for you other America haters.)
Well, sorry for rambling off topic, but I do agree we could use some saving right about now. I guess you could say I like the America in the books, but dislike the "hip," "understanding," and "diverse" face it puts forwards through its corporations and their respective CEOs such as Murdoch. (Check out a documentary called "Merchants of Cool", it's basically your pop culture I have a huge problem with, and a few of the overzealous xian nutters. It reminds me of the people who are the exact reason I can never return home so long as their 'laws' to prevent 'racial antagonism' remain.)
| fugiguru chapter 1 . 12/21/2003
i agree that america has the best system on earth right now. that's not to say it couldn't be better, and that there are plenty of improvements to be made, but compared to other forms of government, ours is superior.
as for your suggestion as to how the rest of the world should be run... it would never work. one supreme ruler of the entire world? having a title like that would get to anybody's head, and if they had an army behind them, somehow i think we'd all be living under a dictatorship very fast. and not one country is about to give up their own identity to go live under the U.S. but nice job in writing well enought to make it sound like it was plausible.
| Nemen chapter 1 . 12/12/2003
You make quite a few extraordinary claims, but I believe I'll ignore those for now (WE saved the Old World? We were TRYING to save ourselves, and even then, the Old World did the VAST majority of the fighting and dying FOR us in BOTH wars!)
Basically, what you're proposing is that the United States (which, by the way, is cosmically "right", despite the fact that there is no such thing as cosmic "right". But, again, let's move on) declare the rest of the world the enemy, take over the rest of the world, and annex it all? Because that's basically what it sounds like. Now, while I could argue against that on ideological terms, I believe I'll do something different...
I'll argue against that in practical terms. We don't take over the world and make it part of the United States because we CAN'T. True, we have a HUGE (way, way too large, if you were to ask me) army, with some of the most expensive and destructive toys on the face of the earth. We can reduce cities to rubble fairly easily. One on one, we can take on any single country in the world, and defeat it easily. However...
How can we expect to take on the WORLD? Wishful thinking aside, we're not all-powerful. We would exhaust our army, like all past "great conquerors", trying to hold on to and protect an ever-increasing empire. Remember the Roman Empire? Try to take over the world, and the sheer area of it and loss of experienced fighters will defeat you.
And, if not area, then the terrain. In a fight in a clear grassland, we'll win. Our forces will completely destroy the opposotion. But what about the jungles? They render our technology basically useless. Or the Russian wastelands? They proved the downfall of far greater generals than ours (Remember a little guy called Napoleon? Or heck, let's throw in Hitler!) If area doesn't take us down, the terrain will.
Then, there's the sheer cost of war. One single fighter plane costs a few mil to build. Ditto tanks, ditto all large equipment. Missiles are slightly cheaper, but not by much. We'd go broke making them! Truth to tell, we could easily handle a few small wars with no visible strain, but attacking the world would kill our economy. Thus, even if the mass and terrain don't stop us, money will.
Then, of course, there are nukes. Bright, shiny nukes. We could, perhaps, nuke a few of the head cities of the world, and THAT would make everybody else throw down their arms and surrender, right? Wrong. We have the nukes, but if we use them, we'd be erased from the face of the earth in retaliation. We'd have a gigantic, radioactive parking lot where good ol' USA used to stand. No good. Who's to carry on the fight for freedom, then?
So, Admiral, we might fantacize about taking over the world (for the good of the world, of course), but we can't do it.
| Cerulean Dawn chapter 2 . 11/14/2003
Wonderful essay, and I'll get to that in a minute, but I would like to point out that the basis of your idea, saying that the world would be better ruled under one power, is not new.
"Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in the condition which is called war... In such condition there is no place for industry... and consequently there is no culture of the earth... and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
- Thomas Hobbes, from Leviathan, Part I, Chapter 13, Of the Natural Condition of Misery of Mankind as Concerning their Felicity and Misery
Though Hobbes was campaigning for the restoration of monarchy at the time, he still makes a good point. So long as the world is divided, it will be a terrible place. Where there is unity, there is growth. I certainly agree with that.
People can gripe namely by saying things like "I don't want George Bush to be President of England!" and so forth, but, you see, he wouldn't be. There are six billion people on the earth. 300 million are Americans. So, if the world doesn't like Bush, we wouldn't have Bush. Even if every American voted for him in some worldwide election, our vote would be petty in comparison.
And thus we have the real problem. Democracy is not on everyone's agenda. If we assimalate other countries, we have to let them vote, or we will be no better than dictators. So what happens then? We are not the oldest country, but we are the oldest Republic (sorry England, that whole Constitutional Monarchy in the 1600's thing doesn't count, Parliament or no) and so our people have been longest bred to believe that Democracy is the only good way to run a country. Not all people are this way.
Even if through our superior military might and shrewd political manuevering (we'd need someone who isn't Bush for the latter) we were able to extend the open hand of Democracy to all people, we can't be sure that they wouldn't bite the hand that feeds them.
The question becomes not "What would universal democracy do to the world?" but instead "What will the world do to universal democracy?" The Constitution, national or universal, can be amended with enough votes. Of course it can be argued that these changes would reflect the will of the majority, which transcends the narrow minded goal of having the whole world think like the US, but that doesn't mean those changes can be trusted for the good of the whole world.
We Americans have clung fast to our 215 year old governing document, choosing not amending it very much, because it works, and we know it does. The world, however, does not know this.
You argue that America is the best example of what a Democracy can be, and you're absolutely right. In thousands of years of human civilization and in two hundred years of watching us, no one has produced a better example. This tells me something: much of the world cannot govern itself democratically. It is not ready. It does not know how, and it won't whether we show them or not.
Some will say that Americans cannot be trusted to run a United States of the World; I say the world cannot be trusted either.
| Martin chapter 2 . 10/9/2003
First off, an argument in support of the U.S. certainly is refreshing. I think you did a pretty good job in getting across your point. I don't agree with or even think it's possible for the U.S. to take over the world, but oh well.
I would like to argue one point, however. That is, the individual states are NOT sovereign nations. Want proof? It's called the American Civil War. Five of the bloodiest years ever known to this country, were dedicated to, in some sense, that very argument. The south wanted to secede from the Union, stating that they were sovereign nations and had every right to do so. The north viewed the states has a whole to be the true nation, and refused to allow the Union to be broken. Guess who won?
| M.D. Cantine chapter 2 . 10/7/2003
Thank you so very, very much.
When I asked my father (yup, I am a minor) why exactly the United Nations didn't work, he said that the UN is simply not a democracy-believing body, as you pointed out. It indulges nations dangerous to the world (and themselves. Forgive me for saying this, but small children shouldn't play with sharp scissors, and infantile countries should not be allowed the privledge of nukes.) I have thought about this for some time, and I decided that perhaps there should be a New United Nations- the free countries of the world joined together. While, no doubt, the world would be a better place ruled by America, I am ambivlent about taking over the world. Anyway, if America continues the war on terror, and to knock out despots and dicators, it practically IS the world. Bring it on.
And that was an extermely effecive comparison about the high school nerd. As a middle school nerd, this is correct. Some may be my friend and like me and go along with me, but the ones who don't still ask me questions, and depend on me for trival things which they don't even believe they need.
Very good work. I love to read stuff like this, pro-American and all that.
| Le Creature chapter 2 . 10/4/2003
Okay, sorry about that mix-up with the quote usage. I revised my critique into a more essay-like form. Once I was done though, it kind of stopped being a critique and ended up as more of an essay, so I posted it as chapter three to "The Modern Li." ( . ?storyid1412391&chapter3 or just click on my name). Heh, managed to get this one down to less than 5 pages. Oh, and if you want to see the original again, e-mail me.
| i hate the un chapter 2 . 9/30/2003
un sucks us rules. great essay i hate the un they are weak as the iraq prewar has shown. there pupets of the french and china. they have shown how the un misunderstands there place in the world. they think that it is going to lead into a one country world. but its true job is to help better the world by helping to solve minor problems. again i hate the un. the one true way to have a one country world is to have one country take over all the rest. i can not see a better country to do so than the us. i think that your oil idea could work well but many places have there own unused oil suply so you might want to consider cuting off the world from are food as we make more than we eat many places could starve manly places. and good proof is that the gov pays farmers not to raise crops
| Le Creature chapter 1 . 9/27/2003
Hey there. I wrote some essays called "The NonImperialist" in response to this, but those were kinda rough, and besides, i'd never done a proper critique of your essay (which it certainly justified), so I didn't want to plug you to them.
I hope I don't offend you too badly, but by the time I was done with my critique, it was 23 pages long, so I posted it as an essay. It pretty much sums up my "NonImperialist" essays as well, so you don't need to read those, although you're certainly welcome to.
w w . ?storyid1408966
(included spaces. Otherwise, you could just click on my profile and go to my "stories.")
I hope you don't mind the in-depth critique, and I hope it helps both your future essays and contributes to the debate as a whole. Cheers!
| Outside The Sqare chapter 1 . 9/21/2003
In 1823, the U.S. released the Monroe Doctrine, stating that the U.S. was done with their conquest of expansion, and holding its policy as "isolationalism" until WWII, when we decided to intervene to stop the Axis powers.
I have no opposition to force exerted to prevent modern day Hitlers from taking over the world, but if what you agree that the U.S. way of government should be a world-wide policy, and that way of federal democracy including Separation of Powers, then you would most certainly disagree with the United States blatant disregard for the wishes of other democratic nations that are co-operration together under the organization of the U.N. If we plan on having a world-wide influence, we ought to heed to those policies which we claim that we believe in, of our own constitution. One of those is a separation of powers, and the ability to co-operate amogst the independent republics. If I remember correctly, a call to war requires 2/3rd of Congress approval. How many countries make up 2/3rds of the U.N.?
| Guin chapter 1 . 9/16/2003
I saw a counter essay to this and I thought it'd be best if I read who they were writing about.
Well, to give it to you straight, i would rather America DIDN't take over my country. England and the rest of the world is doing just fine without being conquered.
Now, I'm not saying that I don't like America. Far from it, I think it's a great country, from what I saw of it in the year I lived there it seemed ok.
but wouldn't conquering countries unwillingly be the very thing America is about? I thought America beleived in freemdom.
But the thing with taking over the world (looking back at the British Empire)
| Swarvoski chapter 2 . 9/9/2003
Ha, my mother used that line on me too...
At first I was a little hesitant, but the more I read, the more I began to agree with you. You supported your views well and obviously did your homework. I happy to see someone who didn't just prove other people wrong, but admitted to being wrong themselves in one or two places. Bravo, I commend you!
I started thinking about what would happen if America was in charge. Other countries might complain about how their traditions and religions would be suppressed. Some people probably would be moody about it and react violently, but not most. I would invite those countries to log onto the internet or open a history book (but I don't trust those much...where I'm from they're way out of date...) and see about what the U.S. did for the Native Americans (as you pointed out). They let them keep their cultures and gave them their own land!
Hmm...well, to sum it up, I loved it. Absolutly loved it. I will recommend it to others. Keep up the good work.
P.S. Keep the humor coming too :)
| An Experienced Theorist chapter 1 . 9/7/2003
May I call you marx?... You share the "ends justifies the means" mentaility of the governmental systems you propose to overtake. An interesing inconsistency.
1) the above noted
2) stylistic comment: repeating yourself isn't ingraining, it's annoying (...the last paragraph)
3) your evidence of each state being its own, but loosely unified, nation is shaky. Please refine.
4) a pretty well written essay.
I say nothing of agreement or disagreement, only style and mechanics.
| Aurum Potestas Est chapter 2 . 8/26/2003
You're saying that UN doesnt really care about democracy because it allows a communist dictatorship to be a permanent member of its most powerful committee. Here's the thing, If US were to were to govern the whole world, wouldnt that be somehow communist?
| Aurum Potestas Est chapter 1 . 8/26/2003
Im sorry. I have to disagree with you. Anyway, not everyone sees americans as greedy idiots. It is the government that many hate.