Who is the biggest threat to America in your opinion?

[Freiheit Reich]

Haha...I assume you are joking. Look at murder rates and Latin American nations are right at the top.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... icide_rate

Nekostan is wrong but it is worth noting that these murder rates are an effect of the destabilization and inequality left by US interventionism.

Please. A lot of the murderers are gang members seeking money and women and glory. Vietnam doesn't have such a high murder rate and France and the USA did a lot more 'intervening' there. I doubt many gangsters in Latin America said 'America is evil, I think I will murder a couple gentlemen in my barrio today because I am angry the US supported a dictator here before I was even born."

Inequality is a serious problem in many countries and yet their murder rates are not sky high. How many more years will the USA and Europe be blamed for problems in Africa and Latin America? There needs to be a statute of limitations on this blame.

[Normenthia]

Sorry I'm late and making a one off comment, but the poll isnt full. The greatest threat to America, is America themselves.

[Fascist PRUESSENS]

The two party system

[Freiheit Reich]

Haha...I assume you are joking. Look at murder rates and Latin American nations are right at the top.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... icide_rate

Small scale random violence and long scale, purposeful violence are not the same. Latin American nations are often problematic on the former but not so problematic on the latter. The latter is where continental Eurasians especially northern ones are “good” at.

I guess I have to agree with you overall (unless we go back to the Spanish invasions of South America a few hundred years ago which were quite brutal) or the war in Paraguay which also was a long time ago. Most Latin American nations and Romance speaking nations keep their violence domestic.

[Adamede]

Anyway, here are some definitions of imperialism;

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imperialism

https://www.britannica.com/topic/imperialism

You’ll have to excuse me for preferring then over some rando on the internet.

Yes, these were always the definitions we've been talking about.

A dictionary is not an infallible holy book, it can present definitions that are wrong, misrepresenting or outright ridiculous esp. the weakness of dictionaries on political science. Parlance of words can change, and dictionary only shows what its author thought or main preconceptions, not what is to scientific analysis.

we've already talked how these definition is too broad and could be applied to anyone contradicting geopolitical reality

You would be well pleased to know I am not talking shit here, considering that alternative and coherent views of imperialism has been proposed, such as Immanuel Wallerstein in World Systems Theory, and Vladimir Lenin in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. These are not "randos on the Internet" afaik

I’d argue that most nations are imperialist to some extent or another.

Few, hence my statement. And something being common doesn’t really invalidate it at all. Imperialism isn’t something special

So being "imperialist" is largely synonymous with being a nation? It comes naturally with being a nation?

If used incorrectly. But I’d argue that the definition you advance is just as incorrect.

No, since all countries are involved in "direct territorial acquisitions" or "gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas" it might as well be is

Doesn’t mean that’s the only form of imperialism present in the modern age.

Doesn’t make it not imperialism.

But again the historical dynamics are too different to the point that it's not just the same. If two things are different we might as well use another word.

Studying history is very different from looking up in a dictionary and calling it a day.

As do most modern empires.

No. The origin of the modern state is very modern having its roots in the post-Renaissance period. Modern countries don't exactly rely on warlords or feudal lords to do their thing.

Or maybe there’s more to imperialism than just integration into the political-economic sphere of the dominant world power and that not even the “underdogs” are innocent.

You are the one who's reducing it and making it less. That's a strawman as this has nothing to do with being innocent or being good, but simply what the reality of nation-state systems are.

No, you’ve made your excuses to defend your far too narrow definition, likely to support your own world view.

I know better than to waste my time on bullshit like this, nor is it the subject of the thread.

[Surrealist Patagonia]

Togo

[Boris Cult]

The Biggest threat to America is America itself

[Sanghyeok]

Yes, these were always the definitions we've been talking about.

A dictionary is not an infallible holy book, it can present definitions that are wrong, misrepresenting or outright ridiculous esp. the weakness of dictionaries on political science. Parlance of words can change, and dictionary only shows what its author thought or main preconceptions, not what is to scientific analysis.

we've already talked how these definition is too broad and could be applied to anyone contradicting geopolitical reality

You would be well pleased to know I am not talking shit here, considering that alternative and coherent views of imperialism has been proposed, such as Immanuel Wallerstein in World Systems Theory, and Vladimir Lenin in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. These are not "randos on the Internet" afaik



So being "imperialist" is largely synonymous with being a nation? It comes naturally with being a nation?



No, since all countries are involved in "direct territorial acquisitions" or "gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas" it might as well be is



But again the historical dynamics are too different to the point that it's not just the same. If two things are different we might as well use another word.

Studying history is very different from looking up in a dictionary and calling it a day.



No. The origin of the modern state is very modern having its roots in the post-Renaissance period. Modern countries don't exactly rely on warlords or feudal lords to do their thing.



You are the one who's reducing it and making it less. That's a strawman as this has nothing to do with being innocent or being good, but simply what the reality of nation-state systems are.

No, you’ve your excuses to defend your far to narrow definition, likely to support your own world view.

I know better than to waste my time on bullshit like this, nor is it the subject of the thread.

So you found something you can't refute just like Nikoleras and Cordel's arguments in the police thread?

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

Togo

I honestly thought it was Liechtenstein.

[The Black Forrest]

Togo

Nah. That sandwich chain is all but gone.

[Sanghyeok]

Togo

Nah. That sandwich chain is all but gone.

Do you think Benin is a bigger threat?

[Surrealist Patagonia]

Togo

Nah. That sandwich chain is all but gone.

Both the country and restaurant

Nah. That sandwich chain is all but gone.

Do you think Benin is a bigger threat?

Benin is not a threat. It is an American ally.

[Feyrisshire]

Togo

Haven't you heard how many children Gnassingbe had killed today?

[Adamede]

No, you’ve your excuses to defend your far to narrow definition, likely to support your own world view.

I know better than to waste my time on bullshit like this, nor is it the subject of the thread.

So you found something you can't refute just like Nikoleras and Cordel's arguments in the police thread?

I’m not going to waste my time on something that isn’t relevant to the thread. I already said my piece and if that isn’t enough to change their fundamental worldview, which is what their argument is based on, there’s no point beating a dead horse.

And both Nikoleras and Cordero had their arguments pretty trashed on the police thread already, along with the horse that has been beaten to a pulp on that thread.

Now do you have something actually worthwhile to add for once? Because, again, this isn’t the purpose of the thread.

[The Black Forrest]

Nah. That sandwich chain is all but gone.

Do you think Benin is a bigger threat?

Haven’t been there so I can’t judge their street food.

[Cordel One]

So you found something you can't refute just like Nikoleras and Cordel's arguments in the police thread?

I’m not going to waste my time on something that isn’t relevant to the thread. I already said my piece and if that isn’t enough to change their fundamental worldview, which is what their argument is based on, there’s no point beating a dead horse.

And both Nikoleras and Cordero had their arguments pretty trashed on the police thread already, along with the horse that has been beaten to a pulp on that thread.

Now do you have something actually worthwhile to add for once? Because, again, this isn’t the purpose of the thread.

I must've missed the part where that happened.

[Adamede]

I’m not going to waste my time on something that isn’t relevant to the thread. I already said my piece and if that isn’t enough to change their fundamental worldview, which is what their argument is based on, there’s no point beating a dead horse.

And both Nikoleras and Cordero had their arguments pretty trashed on the police thread already, along with the horse that has been beaten to a pulp on that thread.

Now do you have something actually worthwhile to add for once? Because, again, this isn’t the purpose of the thread.

I must've missed the part where that happened.

I must’ve missed the part where any of you actually made a good argument then.

[Kiu Ghesik]

OP: It's a hegemonic power, everything not aligned with it is a threat by nature. And it likely considers most things aligned with it to be in the same boat.

And both Nikoleras and Cordero had their arguments pretty trashed on the police thread already, along with the horse that has been beaten to a pulp on that thread.

I must've missed the part where that happened.

Well, it's because your arguments went unscathed; some Cordero fellow bit it instead. _/s

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

OP: It's a hegemonic power, everything not aligned with it is a threat by nature. And it likely considers most things aligned with it to be in the same boat.

I must've missed the part where that happened.

Well, it's because your arguments went unscathed; some Cordero fellow bit it instead. _/s

YO KG WASSSSUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUP!!!!

Anyway, the biggest threat to America is obviously the immortal androids. _/s

[Cordel One]

My answer to the thread question is that progress is the biggest threat to America. We can only remain a backward superpower for so long until the world community undermines the power that's been terrorizing it. There's also the issue of our subpar domestic institutions, our expanding wealth gap, the growth of China and the European Union, the increasing political polarization around the planet, and of course the climate. These issues may seem unrelated, but they're all connected to progress.

[Cordel One]

I must've missed the part where that happened.

I must’ve missed the part where any of you actually made a good argument then.

I think I found your problem, then. You didn't read.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

My answer to the thread question is that progress is the biggest threat to America. We can only remain a backward superpower for so long until the world community undermines the power that's been terrorizing it. There's also the issue of our subpar domestic institutions, our expanding wealth gap, the growth of China and the European Union, the increasing political polarization around the planet, and of course the climate. These issues may seem unrelated, but they're all connected to progress.

How is progress a threat to America--how are we backward? Not saying there aren't a slew of problems, but why would improving things and working toward healing this horribly divided country be a threat?

[TNO Iberian Union]

Israel has more votes than Russia, what?

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

Israel has more votes than Russia, what?

I don't know why, either.

[Sundiata]

Terrorism, foreign and domestic.