The USA is an Imperialist Power
Debate Rounds (3)
This is not a unique situation, as a matter of fact, America has a sphere of influence throughout the world that is so strong that it is evidently an imperialist power. Thousands of American soldiers are posted in military bases throughout the world, particularly in western Europe, Japan, and SE Asia and the Carribbean. Regimes that do not have American interests are eliminated. Examples of this include intervention by the FBI in Chile in 1973 to depose the democratically elected Salvador Allende and to bring autocratic Augusto Pinochet to power. They also include the invasions of Iraq in 1992 and 2001 in order to protect Kuwaiti oil and then to obtain Iraqi oil at a cheap price, this was after Iraq was sold weapons by the 1980s in order to fuel it's war with Iran in the 1980s - Iraq vs Iran was actually America vs. The Soviet Union, and eventually America one.
There are few powers that are truly independent of America on a political level, and virtally none that are independent on an economic level. China's oligarchy is an example of political independence from America, but American branch plants control much of the natural resources in China and it is the American demand for cheap goods that has fueled China's economic boom. Virtually the entier world has adopted capitalist democracy and free market zeal. The most recent acquisitions by the American Empire include many eastern European countries, which have now adopted free market policies.
Parallels can be drawn between the American Empire and the Roman Empire as well. For instance, Rome was dominated by a free market policy, and, ironically (or not) later Roman times saw rivalry between the patricians, the aristocracy of Ancient Rome who had ruled for hundreds of years, and the equites, the rich business class, many of them not even citizens, who were undoubtedly the elites and controlled virtually everything that the emperror did not.
In the past America's imperialist leanings have been more evident, especially in terms of it's holdings in the South Pacific, but nowadays, even though it remains imerialist, it is more subtle. The North American Free Trade Agreement subtly saw Canada and Mexico become part of America's Empire and it expanded even more with the Dominican Republic - Central America Free Trade Agreement.
The USA is an empire like many before it, and, like many before it, it will collapse at some point. However, at present it would seem that it is irrefutable that America DOES have a corporate empire, and will do so, like it or not, for years to come.
According to Dictionary.com, an empire is: "a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire."
Obvoiusly, the US is not ruled by royalty of the conventional sort, so I've highlighted the parts of the definition that could appy the the US if Pro is correct.
1. World markets are flooded with US goods.
The US is mostly free market, so the companies selling the goods are not in any way part of the government. Microsoft's legions are not going to invade Gaul. People just want thier stuff. This has little to do with the government, other than for a long time, they stayed out of the way so businesses could grow. There are Canadian businesses that are well known and are serious competitors in the US: Nortel, Bombardier, RIM, etc, but most importanty, to have a branch in Canada, the branch must be a seperate company owned by a Canadian.
2. US cultural influence is overwhelming in Canada.
Canada and the US both started off as British colonies in the same region with similar population demographics and strong ties to English customs and common law. We share much trade and an enormous fairly open border with no military conflicts since the early 1800s and have nearly identical standards of living. Is it any doubt that the one with 10x the population would have more cultural influence?
3. Canadian government is now operating in a similar way to the US'.
The examples cited of Canada's PM moving toward US domestic policy do not line up with the assertion that Canada is under US political control. For years post-Cold War, the largely socialist Canadian government and public was critical of US military influence in many conflicts. They have also been more liberal toward MJ. But now that we have a far more socialist President, and have even started socialized medicine and legalized MJ in 37% of states, Canada seems to be tilting conservative. It's backwards from what Pro is saying.
4. US foriegn policy leads to intervention in foreign affairs for economic or other strategic gain.
We let Iraqis have control back over the oil fields. Congress passed a bill disallowing US companies from making agreements with Iraq for oil deals. Consider how many nations we've temporarily took over, then rebuilt. Which ones are still under US control? Consider after WWII and the Cold War how many nations we could control if we were really imperialists?
5. US companies control much of the natural resources of our most powerful rival, the PRC.
I would like to see evidence of this.
6. Virtually the entire world has adopted capitalist democracy and free market zeal.
Not quite. Russia and China have, Canada is starting to go even more capitalist, but US is going in the opposite direction. Democracy is what got Russia Putin, who is taking it as far as he can away from democracy, and China just wants it's citizens to shut up and be productive, not heard. The EU and the US are about to collapse under the weight of too many social programs and spending, the other way from what pro says we're leading the world.
7. Economic and class parallels can be drawn between the US and Rome.
Pro only gave the Rome side of the parallel, not how it relates to the US.
8. Many other Western Hemisphere nations have become part of the US Empire because they made trade agreements with the US.
Not likely unless pro can show that the agreement unfairly benefits the US.
9. It seems irrefutable that America has a corporate empire.
I could find no definition for "corporate empire" as it relates to national government. Besides, in our free market system, corporations are FREE from the government. Just because the company is there, doesn't mean the government is.
Hello again! Good debating, it looks like I have my work cut out for me :)
First of all, I chose the term imperialist specifically, so let us separate "imperialist" from "empire." According to good old dictionary.com "imperialism" is the "policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies," note how this differs from the necessity of having an emperor or powerful sovereign, or even, for that matter, of being a united group of nations!
I disagree entirely that corporations do not have anything to do with the government. Firstly, the US government taxes them, secondly the US government bails them out (think 2008) and thirdly empires, or imperialist powers, are made by investing and such. You mentioned the British Empire in your definition, and I think that the end of it in the 1950s is a perfect example. British investors in the Suez Canal were threatened when Nasser nationalized it, therefore the British government invaded Egypt to protect it's interests - just as the US did with Kuwait in 1992 to protect it from Iraqi interests. If your nation monopolizes the goods of other nations, it is imperialist, because it is extending the "authourity" of it's "nation over foreign countries." Now you will not deny that a nation includes the people within it!
For the next point, Canada and America were not both British colonies to begin with. Canada began with New France, and when we last were both colonies in 1775 Canada had a population of 90,000(1) and America had a poplation of 2.5 million (2). Vastly different, and as for the effects of this on cultural influence, let us take an example with similar demographic and geographic features, China and Japan. China has 10x the population, but is incredibly different from Japan. On the other hand, let us take an imperialist power, Rome, which exerted it's influence and culture over all of it's empire even though it's population was SMALLER than the rest of it's empire as a whole. Celtic traditions began to die, as historians have figured out, but if you want a purely objective point of view all you need do is to look here (3) at the head of the Roman god Mercury, found in Roman Britain and obviously worshipped - thus Rome exerted it's influence over the Celts.
Obama is a corporatist, juse like Bush was, and this is evident in his FORCING Americans to buy corporate healthcare or otherwise pay a tax!(4) This is a prime example of the US government being in league with it's corporations. Marijuana is not legal in the US, by federal law.
As for countries you've temporarily taken over, you haven't had to remain as you controlled them economically already. Also, the US concept of "rebuilding" would seem to be putting dictators into power, once more I cite Chile in 1973 for free market Pinochet, Panaman independence in 1904 for the Suez Canal, President Arbenz in Guatemala 1953-54 (democratically elected), and more that can be seen here,(5) and that is South America alone.
If I don't have enough space to reply here I'll finish next time. The American corporate class, the richest 1% who control 40% of the wealth, parallels the Roman equites I mentioned earlier, and the American aristocracy, and the conflict between the two. If you deny that an American aristocracy exists, remember that the Bush family goes right back to the mid 1800s and Sam P. Bush, the wealthy industrialist in the 1890s.(7)
Taxation of a company by the governmet does not mean the government controls the company, let alone uses it to exert power over other nations. There are plenty of Canadian companies you could buy from for all your needs if you wanted to boycott. As I said before, Canadian provinces have more protectionist policies than the US for a foriegner starting a business. i.e. Agents of Service 
As far as government bailouts/takeovers (GM, Chrysler) Pro only uses examples from the last 4 years. Surely the US would have been "corporately imperialist" for longer than that. And just because the last 4 years have had heavy government meddling does not mean the clothes, computer products, and TV shows Canadians have used for the last 50 years are used to somehow control Canadians.
"Obamacare" was a system that was made with deals with insurance companies (mandatory coverage), but the goal is single payer, i.e. the government is the only insurance provider. 
Saying that the differences between Canada the US are as wide as China and Japan is not accurate. For the most part we watch the same TV, wear the same clothes, and speak the same language, and even eat the same foods. I do realize I was wrong about England starting Canada, I remember now that it was in fact France. But Canadian law has its foundation in English common law. Therefore it makes sense that with 2 very similar populations in this close proximity, the larger one would be culturally dominant by sheer numbers.
As far as the First Gulf War (Iraq '91), we were asked to intervene by the Saudis and the Kuwaitis, we left once Iraq agreed to non-aggression towards it's neighbors, and Kuwait was quickly returned to Kuwaiti Royal control.
In contrast, Britain's actions in the Suez in '56 were more than about Nasser nationalizing it. The Soviet and PRC empires were expanding rapidly post-war, and Nasser had begun aligning himself with hostile, expansionist empires.
As far as aristocracies are concered, there are always successful families. Naming one in the US does not mean there is an established aristocrat class. Rags-to-Riches startups like Apple and Microsoft upset the status quo all the time.
As far as Rome vs. US. I still don't see what you're saying. Are you refferring to the "occupy" movement? Trust me, those protests weren't as powerful a force as you might think. The Tea Party is just as big.
Numidious forfeited this round.
Furthermore, a Canadian resident is required to at least be a figurehead agent for a foreigner to run a business branch in Canada, giving Canadian citizens more control over companies operating within their borders than the US.
His example of the first Iraq invasion contains misrepresentations of the actions and intentions of our friends and enemies in the region, and also misrepresents the outcome. We did not get cheap Iraqi oil from the deal, we just maintained the flow of Saudi and Kuwaiti oil.
Also, my opponent's perception of the world political scene seems to be distorted, either by lack of pertinent information through the media filters or a set world view. The US is indeed undergoing political upheaval, but of a different nature that he knows. Current powers in US government are attempting a hard left in every area, Canada continues socially left, while making rights in a number of areas. The EU is split, China and Russia go right economically, while staying tight on social control.
My opponent also uses vague terms, like "corporatist" that don't really seem to match how he's using them, and how I find them in the dictionary. He also attempts to draw some kind of link between Rome and the US because of cultural influence and an incomplete comparison to Rome and the US having upper and lower classes. Though I'm sure there would have been more explanation if he had been able to make it to the final round.
I had fun, and this is a question I wouldn't mind arguing further sometime, though the 4000 character limit really was a challenge.
Oh, Pro, if you ever want to get together to trade your PM for our President, I'd be cool with that.
No votes have been placed for this debate.