Text 14348, 395 rader
Skriven 2005-10-07 12:11:52 av Raymond Yates (1:3613/48)
  Kommentar till text 14304 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: forever in debt
=======================
 MV> Hello Raymond,

 >>>> No, and that's not the only component required for a classical
 >>>> empire.

 MV>>> No one used the term "classical empire". Let's call it an
 MV>>> "empire new style" then.

 >> Ok, but we'll have to have a new discussion then..

 MV> Why? When I wrote "the US empire won't last that long" I didn't limit
 MV> the scope to "classical empire". So why should I suddenly start a new
 MV> discussion because of your wish to limit the topic of present
 MV> discussion?

Because, Classical Empire and Neo-Classical are two different things.

 >>>> By defintion, empires have conquests of the military nature,

 MV>>> Whose definition?

 >> Classical Empire.

 MV> If you mean by "classical empire" the Roman Empire and others before
 MV> that, that may be true. But for the more mdern empires as the British,
 MV> that certainly does not hold. They were build as much on trade as on
 MV> military might.

Which I was not yet discussing.. However, even in those models, the one
followed the other.

 >>>> and the inhabitants of the conqured lands become vassals of the
 >>>> "winners".

 MV>>> There are some opinion makers here in The Netherlands who say we
 MV>>> have de facto become a vassel state of the US.

 >> Possibly, but "De Facto is not De Jure.

 MV> For the inhabitants of the "vassal state" "de jure" is irrelvant for
 MV> their perception. For the it is "de fact" that makes their perception.

Even so, there's a difference between the two, perceptions having little to do
with that. "What it is" and "What we think it is" are apples and oranges.

 >> This fails the classical test.

 MV> What classical test?

Of Classical Empire.

 >> You are obviously not subject to US Law, so there you are..

 MV> Not so obvious to me. Don't open that can of worms again....

Hadn't planned to, but simply stated a fact. You , in your sovereign country,
are not subject to US Law, It muct be true, you told me so.

 MV> Other than that: even the Romans alllowed conquered states to retain
 MV> their own laws. Up to a point.

Up to a point.. Truly so. And citizens of Rome had different rights than the
citizens of the conqured countries.

 >>>> Now yes, we have a huge military, chock full with very expensive
 >>>> equipment. And yes, we have troops stationed all over the world
 >>>> (the sun never sets) but there are significant differences.

 MV>>> Not all that significant I'd say.

 >> Sure it is, we do not dictate to the sovereign governments,

 MV> Oh, but you do. You just do it in a more subtle way than other did.

 >> we do not have a Governor that dictates policy, we are not
 >> in countries as conqueror.

 MV> Not as openly as it used to be done. The resuot is the same however,
 MV> there is a net flow from goodies from the "conquered" places to the
 MV> US.

And.. there is allso a net flow of goodies not only to your country, but from
your country to /other/ countries, without our interference or exacting of
tribute.

 >> In most cases troops are stationed in foreign countries as
 >> part of mutual defense arrangements,

 MV> Mutual? Can you tell me where the Ducth air force base in the US is
 MV> located?

Nellis AFB NV. They visit, and the Germans have a facility in Texas, I think
it is. Shared facilities, but even so..

 >> at the invitation of the soverign governments.
 >> That's a far cry from being an occupying power.

 MV> Not as far as you believe I think.

Far enough to be a difference.

 >>>> Most cases (and there are currently exceptions, sad to say) we
 >>>> are where we are by invitation.

 MV>>> I bet Ceasar would make the same claim...

 >> He could try, but he would fail at making people believe it.

 MV> Just as you are not entirely succesfull in making me beleive it
 MV> regarding the US.

I'm not trying all that hard, I've been here before.

 >> after all, Gaul wasn't hurting anyone when he invaded it,
 >> and he certainly brought a lot of it back to Rome when he left..

 MV> Same goes for the USA and Hawai....

I covered this already.

 >> Fact is even in Iraq, we can be invited to leave by the
 >> government..

 MV> And will you really go if they did? I'll believe it when I see it.

Probably, we would, I have no indication that it would be otherwise.

 >> although I doubt that's going to happen at this moment as the
 >> results would not be good for the country, but even so.

 MV> I think you have manouvered yourself in a lose/lose situation. Leave
 MV> and it will be bad. Stay and it will get worse. I think that in the
 MV> long run it will be better if you got the hell out of there. But of
 MV> course that is not going to happen whil GWB is still in the driver's
 MV> seat as it would imply an admission of defeat.

I can't argue with that.

 >>>> We do not have colonies in the traditional sense of the term,

 MV>>> But you do have them in the *new* sense of the term. Hawai is a
 MV>>> de facto colony of the USA. And it does not even need a big
 MV>>> stretch of the imagination to call it a colony in the
 MV>>> *traditonal* sense of the term.

 >> Hawai'i is a state, admitted to the Union. it's not a colony.

 MV> A colomy by another name is still a colony.

Not really no. Hawai'ian citizens have the same rights as anyone from any
other state. So that's hardly a colony..

 >> While the circumstances of it's original annexation was a bit
 >> less than forthright (something I have had occasion to study) to a
 >> degree it falls into the catagory of a corporate takeover with
 >> government collusion, rather than a colonisation.

 MV> A conquest by another name is still a conquest.

Neo-colonialism, perhaps.

 >>>> We have not behaved like a traditional empire, in that we have
 >>>> not dictated terms to places we have occupied,

 MV>>> Are you sure about that? My guess is that some would feel
 MV>>> different about that. You may not have doen it at gunpoint but
 MV>>> used more subtle mehods, but I am sure that many would say that
 MV>>> you have dictated terms in some places and on some occasions.

 >> Possibly, but I was referring to the more obvious tack. Of course
 >> the more subtle course is what governments do. Every Government,

 MV> The difference is that the US has the military and economic might give
 MV> some teeth to a polite request.

This time around. ISTR when your fine country did the same in other areas,
when they had the whip hand..

 MV> If our minister of justice politely asks for the release of say Menno
 MV> Blom, he is ignored. When your secretary of state were to ask for the
 MV> release of an American soldier in the custody of the ICC.... Well,
 MV> remember the The Hague Invasion Act?

No such thing.. Call it by it's right name, and we'll talk.

 >> in fact, as that's part of what the Ambassador's job is, to
 >> convey the sense and opinions of the government that he serves.

 MV> I know what an ambassador is. My uncle Jan Lubbers (not related to
 MV> Ruud Lubbers that got entangled in a sex scandal at the UN) was the
 MV> Dutch ambassador in Washington.

 >> I can think of several examples of that within the last
 >> hundred year involving non-US countries, and I'm sure you can, too.

 >> Dictated and persuaded are two different things, after all.

 MV> They are two flavours of the same thing: get the other to do what you
 MV> want. One is the stick, the other the carrot. Usually one employs a
 MV> combination of the two.

As almost all governments do, why should we act different? we're expected to
"Do the right thing".

 MV>>> You may already have forgotten about the "The Hague Invasion
 MV>>> Act", but many here haven't.

 MV>>> Well, that wasn't all that subtle...

 >> Indeed. You'd have to know some of the players in that drama
 >> like Senator Jesse Helms, (he was at the time my Senator) and I
 >> agree that it ruffeled quite a few feathers.  Simply put though,
 >> the US position /whether I agree/ /with it or not/ is:

 >> "The stated purpose of the amendment was "to protect United
 >> States military personnel and other elected and appointed
 >> officials of the United States government against criminal
 >> prosecution by an international criminal court to which the
 >> United States is not party".

 MV> I know what the official position of the USA is. It does not make me
 MV> feel any better. The bottom line is still that there was a threat of a
 MV> military invasion.

And, according to the US, it would have been justified. An aside, why does
this remind me of the Boxer Rebellion, and Gunboat Diplomacy..

 >>>> as nearly every place we've been we've left to allow their
 >>>> own sovereign governments to form.

 MV>>> Provided of course those governments were USA friendly. If
 MV>>> not...

 >> Even if not.. I can't off-hand think of any place we've been
 >> that we're still in because we didn't like the form of government,

 MV> But there are plenty of examples where after helping a government or
 MV> leader in the seat that you went back in for another regime change
 MV> when the deal turned saur. Papa Doc comes to mind. As does Noreiga...

Fair point, and does not mean I like that, either. you 's have to take that up
with those who make poicy. I don't.

 >> Iraq included.

 MV> Iraq is another example of a deal turning saur. Saddam was an alley at
 MV> the time of the Iran/Iraq war.

 >> Iraq is charting it's own course, without out interference I might
 >> add, and taking a course we might not have picked for them I might
 >> add, but, that's how it works.

 MV> Again: I will believe it when I see it.

Keep watching - Things are happening there that are under-reported.

 >>>> Another factor is the fragmentation of power. There is an
 >>>> equal amount of power held in the hands of multinational
 >>>> corporations as there is in our own government.

 MV>>> Just as it was in the 17th century with the VOC and the Dutch
 MV>>> government. There was much power in the hands of Trading
 MV>>> Cooperations.

 >> VOC? that like the Dutch East India Company?

 MV> The very same. A trader's association. A kartel as we would say today.

 >> The same was true with the British, and the French, but in all
 >> those cases they were literally arms of the State, or very
 >> closely associated with it.

 MV> Not at all. The VIC was no more an arm of the Ducth government than
 MV> that Microsoft is an arm of the US government.

Did they not have to have a writ from the government to operate in the DWI?

I do know the British East India Co. had a writ, and paid taxes above the
usual taxes for the monopoly.

 >>>> Our days may be numbered , that's true, but if/when the
 >>>> economy crashes (as we know it will) it will be exactly
 >>>> like the 1930's...

 >>>> Worldwide.

 MV>>> Maybe. Maybe not.

 >> Based om my research, there's no maybe not about it. the world
 >> is too interlinked financially for it to be otherwise.

 MV> But some societies are less vulnerable than others. Ty US is
 MV> especially vulnerable because there everything revolves araound money.

Trust me. it does in your country, as well. Not as obviouly as our.s perhaps,
but it's there.

 >> if, for example the T-bills held by other nations become
 >> valuless in a collapse, that starts a chain reaction.

 MV> This may sound stupid, but I do not know what a T-bill is.

Treasury bill. It'l a paper that is sorta like a loan, from one country/person
to the government. Itr's a promise that it will be redeemed on maturity, and
that's how we finance the money we spend that we do not have, ATM I think it's
about 4 Trillion.. Perhaps more.  I'm not happy with this, I prefer a balanced
budget, and fiscal responsibility.

 >> How is that going to be stopped?

 MV> I don't know. But maybe the overall effect would not be as great as
 MV> you think.

 MV> My largest asset is my house. That would still be there when the
 MV> T-bills have their value reduced to the paper they are printed on. The
 MV> same goes for everything else that affects opur daily lifes. The
 MV> railways and the roads will still be there. The cars and the trains
 MV> will still be there. Tha gas in the north will still be there and the
 MV> pumps to get it up will still be there. So what's stopping socitey
 MV> from just moving on?

Sure they would, but when you cannot pay the taxes, and the money you have
swells up to where it takes large amounts to buy the basics, well, that's what
happened last time in  most places. If you don't have the economy to run the
things you have, then it's seriously bad..

 >> At the moment since no currencies are backed by anything solid
 >> (as far as I know) and they all float, (and the banks are well
 >> aware that they are skaintg on /very/ thin ice) if one goes,
 >> they all go, to greater or lesser degrees.

 MV> That has always been the case. Gold backing never meant anything as
 MV> gold has no intrinsic value in itself either. Just like the banknotes,
 MV> it is al based on faith.

No Intrinsic value, perhaps, but everybody trusted it as you could do things
with it. Even if it was just to make jewelry. surely was a lot more trusted
that the fiat paper is...  Oh, and gold is still the basis for settleing
International debts.,,. Physical gold shuffled from vault to vault.

 MV> Consider the following: In the time when the dollar was still based
 MV> on
 MV> gold, suppose a sourcerer got himself access to Fort Knox and turned
 MV> all the gold into yellow painted lead. What would happen?

 MV> Well nothing of course. That is, nothing would happen unitil someone
 MV> would notice. Only /then/ would hell break loose. Up until then;
 MV> bussiness as usual. Mind yoiu, it could take quite while. Maybe ther
 MV> has been no gold in fort knox for years. Maybe it WAS turned intoi
 MV> iron years ago and nobody noticed yet. Think about it.

Of course nothing would happen until it was noticed. however when it was
noticed, confidence in the country would dissapate. prices would "rise" (value
of money would fall) and that could trigger a depression. Sme with any gold
that's in any vault.

 >>>> Who comes to the rescue then?

 MV>>> The Chinese?

 >> Doubtful, they hold, I think, the most T-bills ATM.

 MV> Which may be a good incentive for them to "rescue" them...

"rescue" meaning a takeover of some sort, I believe. this too is not a good
thing.

 >>>> If it were me, I'd not be cheering for the collapse.

 MV>>> I am not cheering. But sticking the head in the sand is no good
 MV>>> either.

 >> And some of us are not doing that at all. One thing that may
 >> help here is renewed economic growth,

 MV> Ah, yes that old mantra. The problem is that we can not go on growing
 MV> forever.

Perhaps not, at least and remain only on this planet.. That should be next.

 >> A strong America, /responsibly led/, is not a bad thing..

 MV> I have bad feelings when I hear the word "strong" in combination with
 MV> the name of a country. We have heard that too often in the past here
 MV> in Europe and it seldom led to anything good...

Well, Michiel, the way I mean it is a lot different then what you are used to
hearing, perhaps. I ceratinly did not intend to use it in the traditional
manner of time's past

 MV> Cheers, Michiel

Cheers to you, too !
---
 * Origin: Ray's Rocket Shop - Out to Launch (1:3613/48)