[kumarvvr]

Iraq and Afghanistan are ecomonic and geopolitical reasons as well.

Economic expansion is slightly lesser degrading than border expansion.

You may bankrupt a man, he will sulk and move on, but if you occupy his land, he will lash out.

[zpallin]

It's still expansionism, and strange to say it's not.

[shripadk]

It is not. US invading Iraq and Afghanistan was not to expand its territories. You can argue that the invasion was based on false information that Iraq had WMDs or Afghanistan harbored Taliban (which in turn sheltered Osama bin Laden) or you could say that the invasion was to topple dictatorial regimes or you could say that US invaded these countries for oil. Whatever explanation you give it doesn't amount to expansion of territories. Expansion is far far worse. Think colonization. Think subjugation. Think apartheid. Think slavery. This is apart from death and destruction that expansion causes. China is expansionist. It wants lands and more lands. It will do anything to get it. Unless the oppressed country resists it.

[mateus1]

This is bonkers and absolutely doublethink.

I guess you Americans are not familiar with ideologies like the Big Stick Policy and Manifest Destiny. (coined 1845).

[shripadk]

I am not an American. I am an Indian. Stop assuming stuff.

And who better to know about expansionism than Indians? We have been colonized multiple times in the past. We know the exact difference between expansion and invasion. An invasion can turn into colonization if the oppressing party annexes territory and sets up a Government of its own against the interests of the people. US hasn't annexed Afghanistan and Iraq. No matter how much you try to paint it that way it isn't the case.

Manifest Destiny is a cultural thing in the United States. It is not official State policy. The term was itself coined by a journalist (John L Sullivan).

We have a similar cultural quote in India called "Akhand Bharat" where we wish to go back to the time where Bharat was one territory and not divided into Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Doesn't mean we go around conquering neighboring Nations. It is not our official State Policy. But we have definitely had multiple Wars with our neighbors. We have even invaded Pakistan multiple times: Once in 1965 when our Army marched all the way to Lahore and in 1971 when we invaded East Pakistan and liberated it from its oppressive dictatorial armed forces creating Bangladesh in the process. In neither of these cases did we annex territories. We had all the opportunities to do so! We did not.

Every big power has something similar to the "Manifest Destiny". China has one too. It is its Silk Road project called the BRI (Belt and Road Initiative). Except that others aren't actually acting on it and expanding their territories. China is!

[swagonomixxx]

> And who better to know about expansionism than Indians? We have been colonized multiple times in the past.

Sure, we can agree that USA's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was not "colonization" technically, in the 1800s sense of the term.

However, what else would you call all out war, military occupation, hanging the president of the country, etc.? BTW, occupation continues until this day, in both of these nations.

> Manifest Destiny is a cultural thing in the United States. It is not official State policy.

Have you read about the history of the U.S in the 1800s? Manifest Destiny may not have been written into the constitution, but it was absolutely the policy of many leaders of the U.S in that era, and calling it "a cultural thing" actually dumbs down what is an extremely powerful idea behind the forming of the U.S as a nation.

> We have a similar cultural quote in India called "Akhand Bharat" where we wish to go back to the time where Bharat was one territory and not divided into Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.

China has a similar idea with the "One China" rule, and how it basically does not consider Taiwan to be it's own nation. Except, unlike India, it's quite clear than China is willing to invade Taiwan at some point in time (unclear when, but the tensions will never cease).

---

The 1800's style colonization is certainly no longer present, but a variation of it is certainly present, and usually military invasion is not the main tool to achieve domination (however, in the case of Iraq, Afghanistan, it clearly was).

[shripadk]

> China has a similar idea with the "One China" rule, and how it basically does not consider Taiwan to be it's own nation. Except, unlike India, it's quite clear than China is willing to invade Taiwan at some point in time (unclear when, but the tensions will never cease).

I can understand China's fascination with Taiwan under One China principle. But this One China principle doesn't extend to South China Sea or the artificial islands it created. Nor does it extend to China Occupied Ladakh. This is where their principle falls apart and becomes expansionist. They even claim Arunachal Pradesh in India to be theirs when the people of Arunachal Pradesh have since ancient times always had affinity with Indians than with Chinese.

> Have you read about the history of the U.S in the 1800s? Manifest Destiny may not have been written into the constitution, but it was absolutely the policy of many leaders of the U.S in that era, and calling it "a cultural thing" actually dumbs down what is an extremely powerful idea behind the forming of the U.S as a nation.

True. But that was 1800s and this is 2020. Times have changed. People change. Politics change. What was true then is not necessarily true now. USA had slavery in the 1800s too. Doesn't mean it follows the same policies now. We need to understand that Democratic Nations always undergo changes. The Obama era is distinct from the Trump era which in turn is distinct from the Bush era. That is the beauty of Democracy! So what US was in the 1800s isn't going to be the same in 2020s.

> However, what else would you call all out war, military occupation, hanging the president of the country, etc.? BTW, occupation continues until this day, in both of these nations.

Define "occupation". Having an army base in the country is not "occupation" by any means. If that is considered occupation then what would you say when India sent its Army (called the Indian Peace Keeping Force) to Sri Lanka to fight the LTTE terrorists in the Sri Lankan Civil War? We had our Army stationed there for years (1987 to 1990) until it was called back! The LTTE terrorists consider it an invasion. They assassinated our Prime Minister in response. So yeah, this was not occupation neither was when US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Was it an invasion? Yes it was! There is no doubt about it. But to call it "occupation" is stretching it to be honest with you.

US has an army base in Japan, South Korea and Australia. So is US occupying Japan, South Korea or Australia?