I won't argue the USA is totally benign and acts out of anything other that crude self interest (in the vast majority of cases) - but I think the evidence is fairly compelling that the US 'empire' IS more benign and rules with a lighter hand than most historical empires.

The US for example has killed a lot of civilians in Afghanistan (bad). But you don't have to look back very far at all in time to see the Russians and even the British taking a much more brutal approach.

I guess generally I agree with you that the US acts in ways that are contrary to its stated principles, but I do have some optimism that each world empire does seem to get progressively "kinder".

If you call that "not looking very far back in time" (and I agree with that), no approach was ever as brutal as nuking entire cities. But that's besides the point.

In my opinion, the US is historically one of the most destructive "empires", in that it unlike a true empire, it takes very little responsibility for the nations it interferes in. It just takes what it needs and moves on. It doesn't even bother to properly conquer a place, just a long as resistance is sufficiently broken for the US to do it's business. It's more like a swarm of heavily armed locusts than an empire.

With true colonial style empire building comes responsibility. Many former colonial nations are still dealing with that responsibility. Post WW2 US just aggressively raids and meddles, but takes very little responsibility for the people and societies outside its own borders. To call it an empire is an insult to empires.

> If you call that "not looking very far back in time" (and I agree with that), no approach was ever as brutal as nuking entire cities. But that's besides the point.

This is a ridiculous point. You do realize that the allies (not just the US) were fighting the 'Empire of Japan' that was running rampant throughout China and SE Asia, raping and pillaging along the way?

To use no other term, Japan was lucky to be nuked because they weren't going to stop. They were going to fight to the last, and let me tell you (as the husband of someone who's grandfather fought on Leyte and Okinawa), the Japanese were brutal and vicious. Millions of Japanese civilians would've been killed trying to land and take the Japanese mainland. The Japanese were so adamant about fighting that it took a second bomb to change their minds.

If you said the fire bombing of Tokyo or Dresden, then I wouldn't have responded. Those were retaliatory in nature - a punishment that affected civilians more than soldiers (specifically Dresden).

I appreciate your pragmatic view. I would add only the fact that the empires seem kinder only when the resources are abundant. If the oil discoveries fail to keep pace with the consumption and no serious alternatives are found, I foresee some nasty imperial wars ahead and the next "totalen krieg" will be fought with nuclear weapons.

What scale shall we use to compare the results of, say, Hirasima/Nagasaki nuclear bombing with what, say, Mongolians did? Or is it all about being able to manage the public image?

I'll answer the question narrowly (and out of ignorance on the state of scholarly opinion on the bombings) - the Mongolians practiced depopulation as a regular (normal/frequent) form of policy. The pair of nuclear bombings were a one time policy decision intended as a knockout punch.

To counter my own argument, I'd like to say that if ww2 continued, nuclear bombing would NOT have become standard US war policy. However, seen in continuity with the fire bombings of Tokyo, Dresden & etc - I might be over-optimistic.

I think the more crucial difference is that despite how long and bloody WWII was and how it began with a Japanese surprise attack, the US conspicuously failed to kill large numbers of Japanese people after winning - in contrast with the Mongol's [1] practice of slaughtering the inhabitants of cities that refused to open their doors when asked.

[1] The Mongol's, and many, many other armies at various points in time including many historical European forces.

And it wasn't just Tokyo - the USA's firebombing campaign incinerated 50-90% of the population of 67 Japanese cities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S21tC-JxWXA

The debate over this is almost endless, though, and I doubt we can settle it.

I'd rather argue that democracies implement "realpolitik" as much as dictators -- and lie about it.

The difference seems to be that democracies are nicer when the voters at home care (which is more and more common) -- and/or if it doesn't cost lots of money to be nice. For no other reason that it is in the democracies' own interest if other countries start to work better (everyone loves a richer customer).

It is getting better generally, but disgusting regimes the western world is dependent on, like Saudi Arabia, can still literally get away with murder.

This is the best reference I have on the subject of the article, btw.

http://reason.com/archives/2006/03/01/why-poor-countries-are...

Don't you think it's funny that the same people who are able to classify nations as "inclusive"(USA) and "extractive"(the others) fail to see how USA and Europe are "inclusive" internally but highly exclusive and "extractive" externally (they exclusively rule the world using the United Nations puppet organization and when it does not obey enough, they attack others anyways). And if we look again, how it's possible to say that US/Europe are inclusive when the wealth and income polarization is at it's peak and the policy is made by the rich for the rich ? My feeling is that both US and Europe are in fact internally exclusive and "extractive" but the people will not see clearly this until US/Europe will fail to extract enough wealth from the rest of the world anymore.

I think it is very strange. But the reason, I think, is that many academics and others have a worldview that has been warped by propaganda and a general and common trust of authority, or at least some basic trust of their government.

I think that this trust of authority and faith in the worldview presented by authority is a general characteristic of social groups of all sizes. In some ways it is a great failure, as in these cases. In other ways it is necessary, since a group without a common belief system probably couldn't function.

Maybe group membership and belief systems are somewhat directly connected.

Historically this is a proven strategy exercised by all empires and there is nothing new to it: expand and enrich your citizens in good times and milk them in tough times; rinse and repeat.

Democracies in the rest of the world is also "inclusive". In general, the only dictatorships that are tolerated, are those which the democracies are dependent on...

But please give counter examples?

A lot of the conspiracy stuff is based on cult psychology intended to make a buck or simply get the demagogues rocks off with clapping followers. Alex Jones makes his money off being a sensationalist, and mixing truth in with all his subjective proclamations and fear mongering. It's the same tactics politicians and religious zealots use to enhance their "careers".The only difference is Mr Jones does it with a different constituency and outside formal politics to make his living. Someone like John Perkins I look at as to-the-point and about sharing his first-hand story, Alex Jones on the other hand is more about making everyone "feel" like the grand illuminati new world order lizard people are about inject their children with epoxy laced vaccines.

The one thing governments are very good at is solving the violence problem. It pays off really good not to have half of male population killed by the other half.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/lang/en//id/163

The whole 20th century was total mess for Europe and the East. That there were no global wars after 2000 doesn't mean 21st century will be less horrible, given the amount of warfare present.

afaik, the number of wars are getting lower and lower. The same with really poor people.

Also, democracies are increasing in number, so there should be less wars -- the democratic peace theory seems to have good statistical support (see Wikipedia).

I hope you are right. But back in the days with never-ending wars there were never times like ours with the possibility to blow up the world in a go.

So, the wars get smaller but have bigger impact.