Imperialism

[save ferris 101]

Ok, so what does the Church teach about imperialism. Not just the Imperialism of bygone years, like the carving up of Africa by Europe, but the kind of Imperialism we are seeing from the U.S. today, and actually have been seeing for over 100 years, where we try and go and fight wherever in the world in order to "protect our interests", where we aren't taking over territory, but it's more like imposing ideas and trying to gain more power. Answers?

[MichaelFilo]

I'd answer, but the topic is so loaded, I'm afraid it may go off.

God bless,
Mikey

[Thy Geekdom Come]

The trouble is that imperialism has the intent to take some sort of control, not control by side-effect.

[jasJis]

ummm, s.f.101:
Please provide a definition of 'Imperialism' as it pertains to the actions of the US, and please provide one example. No political posturing. Just a concise post.

[Chris Zewe III]

I'm not sure that I understand your query, but the church is very imperialistic, as is America. Not enough info as to what you want, so I'll stop there...

[save ferris 101]

[quote name='Chris Zewe III' date='Feb 13 2005, 11:28 AM'] I'm not sure that I understand your query, but the church is very imperialistic, as is America. Not enough info as to what you want, so I'll stop there... [/quote]
I was just wondering what the Church teaches on Imperialism.

[quote]ummm, s.f.101:
Please provide a definition of 'Imperialism' as it pertains to the actions of the US, and please provide one example. No political posturing. Just a concise post. [/quote]

[b][i]Imperialism-1: a policy of extending your rule over foreign countries 2: a political orientation that advocates imperial interests 3: any instance of aggressive extension of authority

The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. [/i][/b]

Take your pick, but I would say we used to be the latter definition, and we have since moved onto definition part three of the first.

As for examples, wow, so many instances to choose from. How about for starters, since it's the most recent, going into Iraq under the pretense of defense from weapons of mass destruction, when none existed. If you want more examples, just ask.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='save ferris 101' date='Feb 13 2005, 06:18 PM'] As for examples, wow, so many instances to choose from. How about for starters, since it's the most recent, going into Iraq under the pretense of defense from weapons of mass destruction, when none existed. If you want more examples, just ask. [/quote]
Evidence of a weapons program was there, and both sides believed it. The fault was with intelligence. Going into Iraq was not a pretense. It may have been a mistake, but it was a mistake everybody made.


taken from horsefeathers:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D! , CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

[save ferris 101]

Ok, like I said, that was just one instance of American Imperialism. The question still stands, what does the church teach, if it even does, about Imperialism?

Also, there are at least a hundred other instances of American imperialism, so lets not even get started on that, that's for another discussion.

[jasJis]

This discussion is sort of pointless. You aren't [i]really[/i] asking what the Church teaches about Imperialism. If you were, you wouldn't have included (and defended) the superfluous comment about 'American Imperialism'.

Going back to 'American Imperialism', which you TROLL-Like brought up under the guise of asking something else...

How is the Iraq war 'Imperialism'? You don't think the Iraqi people don't think it's worth the sacrifice to have Saddam gone? Based on what information? Before you are too quick to dismiss my question, I'd like to point out that not only do I have in-laws that live in Iraq, I also recent lost a second cousin in Iraq who was an American Serviceman and he also thought it was worth being there. Pick another 'instance' of American Imperialism. Current day Imperialism is the wars that Iraq and Iran had against each other, or the Iraq invasion of Kuwait.

Don't believe all the shinobi that Ward Churchill is spewing.

[yiannii]

[quote]How is the Iraq war 'Imperialism'? You don't think the Iraqi people don't think it's worth the sacrifice to have Saddam gone? Based on what information? Before you are too quick to dismiss my question, I'd like to point out that not only do I have in-laws that live in Iraq, I also recent lost a second cousin in Iraq who was an American Serviceman and he also thought it was worth being there. Pick another 'instance' of American Imperialism. Current day Imperialism is the wars that Iraq and Iran had against each other, or the Iraq invasion of Kuwait.[/quote]

The fact that gets me is that the US went ahead without the UN's permission and invaded a sovereign country. This goes against the very foundations of the UN in the first place. But then again the US is probably the only nation to get away with this action as she is the soul superpower of the world.

Yes perhaps the Iraqi people did want Suddam out of the country but you can not justify the means by the outcome. The Church teaches that you may not do an objectively wrong act for a good outcome. The point is, the US went against the UN and it is a shame that there can be no consequences placed against her for doing so - regardless of her motives, outcomes etc etc etc.

[save ferris 101]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Feb 13 2005, 10:22 PM'] This discussion is sort of pointless. You aren't [i]really[/i] asking what the Church teaches about Imperialism. If you were, you wouldn't have included (and defended) the superfluous comment about 'American Imperialism'.

Going back to 'American Imperialism', which you TROLL-Like brought up under the guise of asking something else...

How is the Iraq war 'Imperialism'? You don't think the Iraqi people don't think it's worth the sacrifice to have Saddam gone? Based on what information? Before you are too quick to dismiss my question, I'd like to point out that not only do I have in-laws that live in Iraq, I also recent lost a second cousin in Iraq who was an American Serviceman and he also thought it was worth being there. Pick another 'instance' of American Imperialism. Current day Imperialism is the wars that Iraq and Iran had against each other, or the Iraq invasion of Kuwait.

Don't believe all the shinobi that Ward Churchill is spewing. [/quote]
Actually, I really am asking what the Church teaches, for the third time. And America does have, and has had, imperialist policies. Mexican War, Spanish-American war, Manifest Destiny, the Louisiana Purchase, Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia. Take your pick.

And it's imperialism because who are we to just go and start wars whenever we feel like it? And I don't care what the Iraqi's think about the war, just cause they like it doesn't mean that it's not imperialism. I am sorry that you lost a second cousin, but once again, no bearing on the nature of the war. Iraq Iran war, not imperialism, Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, yes, that was imperialism. I know what it is, I'm just asking what the Church has to say on the matter.

[jasJis]

Again. It is the characterization that US policies are neccesarily Imperialism that is being brought up 'Troll-Like' since judgment of US policies is irrelevant to finding out 'what the Church teaches'.

What makes the UN more of a moral authority than the US? France and Russia and other countries accept or ignore it as they find politically expedient. It's about $$. France & Russian had financial intrests is leaving the status quo in Iraq. Appeasement isn't always the best policy, as the world learned prior to WW-2. If the US policy isn't an issue in your question, why bring it up and defend your opinion?

I suggest you start another thread and clearly ask your question about the Church teachings or start another thread and clearly state your opinion about US policy. Don't do both together and deny 1/2 of what you're doing.

Here's another question for you. If the UN is a real moral authority, why has nothing been done in the Sudan?

Edited February 14, 2005 by jasJis

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Feb 14 2005, 04:11 PM'] Appeasement isn't always the best policy, as the world learned prior to WW-2. [/quote]
Iraq has not made a serious attempt at conquering a country since 1991, unlike the situation in Nazi Germany between 1933 - 1945.

[save ferris 101]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Feb 14 2005, 09:11 AM'] Again. It is the characterization that US policies are neccesarily Imperialism that is being brought up 'Troll-Like' since judgment of US policies is irrelevant to finding out 'what the Church teaches'.

What makes the UN more of a moral authority than the US? France and Russia and other countries accept or ignore it as they find politically expedient. It's about $$. France & Russian had financial intrests is leaving the status quo in Iraq. Appeasement isn't always the best policy, as the world learned prior to WW-2. If the US policy isn't an issue in your question, why bring it up and defend your opinion?

I suggest you start another thread and clearly ask your question about the Church teachings or start another thread and clearly state your opinion about US policy. Don't do both together and deny 1/2 of what you're doing.

Here's another question for you. If the UN is a real moral authority, why has nothing been done in the Sudan? [/quote]
You are the one that asked for an example of Imperialism, not me. I just said modern imperialism, I didn't start ranting about how Bush is an idiot or how we are killing innocent people or anything like that.

Also, where do you get off talking about the U.N.? I never mentioned them once. Who's "Trolling" now?

You brought up the U.S., not me, you are the one who made this is an issue, not me, and I defended it cause you asked me to. I'm not denying anything either. I just want to know if the Church has anything to say on the matter. Thanks for hijacking the thread

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='save ferris 101' date='Feb 12 2005, 10:02 PM'] Ok, so what does the Church teach about imperialism. Not just the Imperialism of bygone years, like the carving up of Africa by Europe, but the kind of Imperialism we are seeing from the U.S. today, and actually have been seeing for over 100 years, where we try and go and fight wherever in the world in order to "protect our interests", where we aren't taking over territory, but it's more like imposing ideas and trying to gain more power. Answers? [/quote]
Abundant US reference in your first post. JasJis has made a point. I'll ask you to reduce this thread to your question or an attack on US policy. Please don't do both, as to clarify what you are asking and if indeed you are asking.

God bless,
Mikey

[save ferris 101]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Feb 14 2005, 10:43 PM'] Abundant US reference in your first post. JasJis has made a point. I'll ask you to reduce this thread to your question or an attack on US policy. Please don't do both, as to clarify what you are asking and if indeed you are asking.

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
It is a question!!!! I just put that becuase it was the first thing that popped into my head. You can apply it to any recent acts of imperialism, whatever, it doesn't matter, I just wanted to know if the Church has said or teaches anything concerning imperialism.

And actually, I mention the U.S. once :thumb:

[yiannii]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Feb 15 2005, 01:11 AM'] What makes the UN more of a moral authority than the US? France and Russia and other countries accept or ignore it as they find politically expedient. It's about $$. France & Russian had financial intrests is leaving the status quo in Iraq. Appeasement isn't always the best policy, as the world learned prior to WW-2. If the US policy isn't an issue in your question, why bring it up and defend your opinion?

I suggest you start another thread and clearly ask your question about the Church teachings or start another thread and clearly state your opinion about US policy. Don't do both together and deny 1/2 of what you're doing.

Here's another question for you. If the UN is a real moral authority, why has nothing been done in the Sudan? [/quote]
The UN is a united front of many many countries who are supposed to work together towards world peace. The UN was set up to prevent one nation from invading another nation when they personally felt necessary - what gives the US a right to disobey a world organisation?

This is just plain wrong - and you can not deny this very fact: the US went against and outside the UN and this is a disgrace. I am angry that any nation can get away with such an offence with no real consequences. I know that you are a patriotic American but please look past your own bias.

:: You cannot justify the means by an outcome.
:: The Church teaches that you may not use objectively wrong means even for a desired good outcome - even the Holy Father spoke out against such actions.


As for the Sudan crisis; I would like to see where you got your information regarding the UN doing nothing for this crisis. Thanks.

Yiannii~

[jasJis]

yianni,
Please research the Holy Father's reasons in not agreeing going into Iraq at that time did not meet the criteria for a 'Just War'. The Holy Father poposed 'subjective' opinion, and did not agree with Mr. Bush's 'subjective' opinion in evaluating the current circumstances. Sorry. The Pope did not proclaime and 'infallible' position. He gave his opinion, which I value morally more than Bush's, but I am honest enough to recognize it for what it was/is, not make it into something it's not.

Only believe 1/2 of what you hear from both sides and you'll have a more open mind to the their opinions. There issues are much more than invading a 'sovreign' County. The US did not do it completely alone. Many world leaders supported and participated despite danger to their political support at home. Countries and people who disagreed of course promoted and spouted their own political agenda that is picked up by the anti-American factions in the world media.

Again, we digress from the "issue" originally intended in this thread. Let's either get back on track, or start another thread.

Edit to add:
ferris,
An example was not needed to pose your question. Your particular example is inflammatory and subjectively opinionated so it detracts from the clarity of asking about Church teaching.

Edited February 15, 2005 by jasJis

[MichaelFilo]

The UN is not what it was when the US signed up. That aside, I hold the pope's view above any other view on the war, and as such will base my views from there. The facts seem to agree with the Holy Father's feelings about this war.

About imperialism, waging wars for gain is wrong, it has never been part of the just war doctrine. Of course, this is only the church's teaching on imperialism that uses war to meet it's ends. The enslaved south American countries under American rule were also unjustly done so. Imperialism is an exponentiated version of selfishness, and the churhc has not a word of acceptance for it. So, while the Churhc never discusses Imperialism, it may be understood that because Imperialism is only a great demonstration of selifishness, and as such is objectivly wrong.

God bless,
Mikey

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='yiannii' date='Feb 15 2005, 02:43 AM'] The UN is a united front of many many countries who are supposed to work together towards world peace. The UN was set up to prevent one nation from invading another nation when they personally felt necessary - what gives the US a right to disobey a world organisation?

This is just plain wrong - and you can not deny this very fact: the US went against and outside the UN and this is a disgrace. I am angry that any nation can get away with such an offence with no real consequences. I know that you are a patriotic American but please look past your own bias.

:: You cannot justify the means by an outcome.
:: The Church teaches that you may not use objectively wrong means even for a desired good outcome - even the Holy Father spoke out against such actions.


As for the Sudan crisis; I would like to see where you got your information regarding the UN doing nothing for this crisis. Thanks.

Yiannii~ [/quote]
Most Americans give no credence to anything the UN does, its considered a joke and a sham organization.