Ever since America's great western expansion in the 19th century, the term "manifest destiny" has been used to describe the U.S. This term means that it is supposedly God's will for America to spread across the globe, and has caused America to act very Imperialistic (invading other countries to "help" them). Some may say that Manifest Destiny is a good thing, and that since America is the most powerful nation, it is out duty to assist those in need. However, there are many, like myself who beleive that Manifest Destiny and global Imperialism is wrong. I beleive that it was Manifest Destiny that caused the massive slaughter of Native Americans and Bison in what is now Western America. I also beleive that this imperialistic invasion of Iraq is disgusting. Have you ever watched Farenheit 911? Even if Michael Moore is a filthy liar, the footage of the dead civilians in Baghdad is completely real. This invasion has caused so much bloodshed and money, and it is all because of America's Imperialistic nature.

Well, what is your opinion?

quote:

Look at the Great Depression and World War II. Wars are good for the economy.

You made some awesome points Saturnmoth, but I just want to point out that WWII probably helped more than the current war.

-This is because of factors such as we were coming out of the great depression, a far far low point,

-Large quantities of vehicles had to be produced, (hardly any vehicles are being used in the Iraq war because of technology and a tiny amount of fighting compared to WWII)

-Women were now working at the same time as men were (a previously unheard of idea)

-General support for America’s involvement in the war by the population

This is only my opinion and not fact at all, but I think the differences in types of war might effect how they affect the economy.

quote:

The definition of Imperialism:

The practice of one country extending its control over the territory, political system, or economic life of another country.

You cannot doubt that we have/had control over Iraq/Afghanistan. Just look at what were tying to do. We are trying to change them based on OUR lifestyle.

Here is another definition:

The highest, and last, stage of capitalism. As defined by Lenin, imperialism is the merging of bank capital with industrial capital to create finance capital; industry is increasingly dominated by monopolies; the export of capital becomes more important than the export of commodities; super-profits are obtained by imperialist super-exploitation of the less developed countries.

Now this one can be arguable, but many like myself beleive that this is exactly what America is doing, and has been doing for the past century.

And for Manifest Desinty:

Manifest Destiny was a nineteenth century belief that the United States had a divinely-inspired mission to expand.

True that this was particularly aimed at simply ruling the continent of North America, but it simply means God given expansion of the U.S.

Your definitions lack detail and probably do not come from a credible source. text book and especially internet sites are not credible. dictionary.com/ushistory.com... wherever.

your second definition of imperialism is defined by lenin. I dont think I have to tell you that that definition is very biased in favor of a leftist interpretation. The first is closer to the truth but read into that and compare it to Iraq. We are catalyzing a change in Iraq's politics and economy, we are not controlling it.

We are changing Iraq based on our political system, not our lifestyle. We are not imposing our culture on them at gunpoint. Nor are we imposing democracy on them at gunpoint. The people WANT a change. Whether it be democracy or communism, wither could have been instituted. But nevertheless, under the rule of a totalitarian, which committed genocide, held mass executions, stole from his nation, experimented with biological warfare (yes this is true), and has a secret police force. The citizens lives are completely dominated by the government.

Manifest destiny describes the theory that the United States should expand its borders across to the western pacific ocean. It does not say that america should take all the lands in the world.

There is a difference between imperialism and manifest destiny. We are no longer imperialistic, and neither is anyone wlse in the world for the most part. Revolutions all over the world have dispelled western colonial rule and have put an end to the imperialistic age. Colonial claims have their independence.

quote:

This term means that it is supposedly God's will for America to spread across the globe, and has caused America to act very Imperialistic (invading other countries to "help" them)

America has not acted very imperialistic at any point throughout its history. We were a product of imperialism. Britain, France, and the rest of Europe were imperial powers. They formed empires. There has never been an American Empire. the few colonies we ever possessed now have their own independence (cuba) or are commonwealths (Puerto Rico) of the United States.

You have your terms mixed up. What you are referring to is social darwinism, not manifest destiny. Manifest destiny focuses solely on expansion. Social darwinism deals with superior and inferior peoples. we never truly had a social darwinian exposition. That was again dealing more with Europe; who believed that it was their responsibility to colonize and civilize Africa, india, asia, and the americas.

We were never very imperialistic, tending to stay isolationed from the rest of the world during the age of imperialism in Africa and Asia. We claimed no colonies there. The most we had was a sphere of influence in china.

After World War II, america emerged as a superpower, along with the Soviet Union. As a result of the ensuing cold war, America became more and more active (necessarily) in the affairs of the rest of the world. WE didnt imperialize places persay. Imperialism is staking colonial claims and essentially ruling the people yourself. We did no such thing in Europe, the middle east, Asia, or africa or even south america. In central america we had Puerto Rico, cuba, etc and the phillippines in the pacific, but that was all, and that was the results of World War II and the Spanish American War.

Today, In South and central America, we follow the idea behiond the Monroe Doctrine that we are the only power in the western hemisphere and thusly should have to control everyone else, but we still do not. Maintaining trade and commerce and diplomacy, although sometimes interfering in other nations' affairs is not imperialism. It has more to do with good relations and money, and political interest.

quote:

Some may say that Manifest Destiny is a good thing, and that since America is the most powerful nation, it is out duty to assist those in need.

Incorrect. As the most powerful nation, the duties to assist those in need fall upon us, because those in need tend to call on us for help or the rest of the world; we are just the first to respond and because of our welath and power take large roles in relief efforts.

quote:

beleive that it was Manifest Destiny that caused the massive slaughter of Native Americans and Bison in what is now Western America

True and the greed of the early american settlers and pioneers, and also the idea of social darwinism.

quote:

I also beleive that this imperialistic invasion of Iraq is disgusting.

There is no imperialistic invasion of Iraq. There is no argument to the contrary. Set aside all other factors, wheter america was right or wrong or what, but this simply is not an imperialistic action taken by the US. We are not colonizing them or taking advantage of their people.

quote:

Have you ever watched Farenheit 911? Even if Michael Moore is a filthy liar, the footage of the dead civilians in Baghdad is completely real.

You aare correct that moore is a filthy liar. However, do not be fooled by him. The movie is nothing more than propaganda. He intentionally showed images that would support his point and only his point, and make everyone else look stupid. Like most in the media, moore's only goal in making that movie was to make money... nothing more, nothing less (pardon the pun).
He failed to show images of the happy baghdad and iraqi citizens waving on AMerican troops. He also failed to show the images of Iraqis killing their own Iraqi civilians.

quote:

This invasion has caused so much bloodshed and money, and it is all because of America's Imperialistic nature.

Bloodshed... yes, because that is to be expected from any war.
Money... yes, because a war costs money to wage. However, in the end our economy is helped greatly by the War in Iraq, and that goes for any war, and that is a fact. Look at the Great Depression and World War II. Wars are good for the economy.
And Again, I must disagree with the imperialistic nature thing. I've already explained why.

quote:

We are trying to change them based on OUR lifestyle.

Actualy we are changing their form of government to alow all lifestyles. Before lifstyle was decided by their dictator, Suddam.

heh.. i know. It sux

Well there you go, then. What do you plan to do about it? Forcing a drastic change in America's foreign policy is not something done easily, especially with the current administration's refusal to do anything about it and no prospect of a bipartisan moderate president in the near future.

The definition of Imperialism:

The practice of one country extending its control over the territory, political system, or economic life of another country.

You cannot doubt that we have/had control over Iraq/Afghanistan. Just look at what were tying to do. We are trying to change them based on OUR lifestyle.

Here is another definition:

The highest, and last, stage of capitalism. As defined by Lenin, imperialism is the merging of bank capital with industrial capital to create finance capital; industry is increasingly dominated by monopolies; the export of capital becomes more important than the export of commodities; super-profits are obtained by imperialist super-exploitation of the less developed countries.

Now this one can be arguable, but many like myself beleive that this is exactly what America is doing, and has been doing for the past century.

And for Manifest Desinty:

Manifest Destiny was a nineteenth century belief that the United States had a divinely-inspired mission to expand.

True that this was particularly aimed at simply ruling the continent of North America, but it simply means God given expansion of the U.S.

Apparently going west just wasn't enough, Meagan. I suppose the definition could be altered to fit the modern world.

I don't like imperialism any more than the next, but what the US is doing now isn't that. Imperialism entails controlling conquered nations and regions in order to use their resources. While the US still stations troops in places like Germany, Japan, and South Korea, those countries are very much free. We just use portions of their land in order to maintain military bases to better support troops in other foreign countries. Now, the Iraq war was anything but justified, but our goal in Iraq is not to rule it. I doubt anyone knows what the goal in Iraq is at this point. To get out, I would assume. Look at Afghanistan. Yes, American troops are still there, but they have their own government. The US will keep a base there for a few years and then shut it down due to increasing costs, or something along those lines. I am in no way an advocate of the United States' current foreign policy, but it's not imperialism. Not by a long shot.

Wasn't Manifest Destiny used to refer to the spread of the US from coast to coast? I think I'm right...and if I am, then this term cannot be used to describe what the US is or isn't doing today...