US MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ Y or N?
- COL.BUKKAKE
by COL.BUKKAKE » Mon Mar 10, 2003 8:28 pm
Here's my take on disarming Saddam, I hope he doesnt.
With all this talk about liberating the Iraqi's, we have put ourselves in a corner.
If this ass decides to disarm (unlikely), what do we do?
Leave him there, after we sat here and said he has killed hundreds and thousands of his own people.
Bullshit, he's gotta go. UN gets their last vote in 2 days I believe, after France vetos it, BAM take him out.
Put pictures up of them dancing in the streets, pull our military out of Saudi Arabia, load em into Iraq. This way we squeeze em all, including France.
Force Saudi rulers to change their ways, keep close eye on Iran..........many things have to be done to turn that shit-hole of a region around. Bringing them into the 21st century will take amlong f-in time.
or we could just wipe that whole region out and save ourselves the trouble:D
With all this talk about liberating the Iraqi's, we have put ourselves in a corner.
If this ass decides to disarm (unlikely), what do we do?
Leave him there, after we sat here and said he has killed hundreds and thousands of his own people.
Bullshit, he's gotta go. UN gets their last vote in 2 days I believe, after France vetos it, BAM take him out.
Put pictures up of them dancing in the streets, pull our military out of Saudi Arabia, load em into Iraq. This way we squeeze em all, including France.
Force Saudi rulers to change their ways, keep close eye on Iran..........many things have to be done to turn that shit-hole of a region around. Bringing them into the 21st century will take amlong f-in time.
or we could just wipe that whole region out and save ourselves the trouble:D
- El Cid
by El Cid » Mon Mar 10, 2003 10:50 pm
I'm just so sick of France. Their stupid self-riteous excuses for justifying using the veto. I'm glad actually. I hope we go to war with those three loser nations vetoing the vote, and relations between our countries suck. Germany and Russia. I will never by a Mercedes now, nor French wine or truffles or cheese, or Stolichnaya vodka.
- Anton
by Anton » Tue Mar 11, 2003 3:26 am
..Kristov makes some incomprehensible foray about 'the daed not being dead' or something....If he means the figures regarding the Kosovo conflict then he is completely ignorant of the facts *as even admitted by the mainstream press*....
...Though come to think of it, perhaps not the *American press*. After all, as biased and elitist driven as is the corporate press in Canada in Western Europe, there is simply no comparison there to the sort of ideological indoctrination practised in the heart of empire...
I suspect, in fact, that he (Kristov) misread the figures I gave for *Kosovo* for the figures accruing from the earlier Croation and Bosnian conflicts
(Upon both of which, by the way, hang a long tale of Machiavellian intrigue by American and German economic, military and covert forces to fractionate Yugoslavia immediately following the death of Tito.....but that, as they say is another story, a very involved one at that ....)
And, of course, my use of the Kosovo conflict was *only* bv way of an *example* of blatant and profound media propaganda...i.e. it wasn't meant to dispose of the entire Yuogslavian tale in a quick statement..
...As usual (some of) you guys read selectively ...and erroneously at that.
..But then, I really shouldn't be answering Kristov's charges at all as he has (once again) thrown up his hands proclaiming...though failing in any demonstable way to prove....my 'skewedness' ..and thus implied lack of credibility.
This is an old refrain from Kristov....a tiring one at that. But since others have mumbled similar calumnies of late..let me respond.
..Stick to the argument. Respnd to the facts. If you don't believe the stats, figures and historical events I submit before you....fine. Go look them up and show me I'm wrong.
(And here let me proffer some sort of post and pre-emptive apology for always seeming to 'pull rank' with reams of facts, dates and figures....I know, it must be irritating....Its's irritating for me to *have to always do it*...UNFORTUNATELY..there's simply no way 'round such a necessity....Historical context and the historical record are what they are..If you don't know it, well...that's not my 'problem'....just my burden).
* * *
As for all the talk of the UN...I don't know where to start. You're sentiments and notions are so contradictory.
In any case, most of what I read revealed an incredible arrogance for world opinion - indeed, the very imperial mindset you all seem so quick to dismiss...(Then you wonder why everyone 'hates' you).
It seems as if you actually buy into Bush's patently imbecilic logic that if the UN doesn't accord with US demands....it's 'irrelevant'....
..Funny (what with all the earlier talk about 'contracts' and treaties' being inviolable and all), but I would think that if *one* country intends to thwart the will of the vast majority (almost *all* of non-aligned countries have expressed opposition to an unprovoked attack on Iraq, as well as three of the permanent security council states), simply by virtue of the fact that it has the arrogance and power to do so....
...well, it's not the UN that is irrelevant...what's irrelevant is any claim by the US to be acting within any international legal framework. It is the US which is forfeiting any international legitimacy...
But then we know that that's precisely the point of *imperial prerogative*, isn't it?...Might makes right, period. Rational discussion, not to mention, justice and truth, is totally beside the point.....But, of course, some sort of ideological justification is always 'nice'...and, indeed, necessary to get the domestic plebs to support and pay for it.
All this is notwithstanding the fact that the UN has virtually always been a plaything of the US since its creation....i.e. Washington has universally defied and ignored it when it didn't get its way (which it almost always does by virtue of bribery and coercion), and only supported it when they could gain some cheap advantage by doing so.
And as for the slamming of France for its involvement with Iraq....well, there's the pot calling the kettle black. The US was for decades the main supplier of arms to Iraq ...including chemical weapons which it didn't give a shit about because Iraq was then prosecuting American interests (fighting the Iranians - remember, 1,000,000 killed) in the Gulf....Once again, the astounding hypocrisy.
As for someone saying the US is not an empire because it doesn't hava an "emperor"....
Please....are you really that naive? Was the British Empire run by an 'emperor'? (It was run, somewhat like the US, by an oligarchy of financial, military and upper class interests)
I mean, c'mon...if a mafia don calls himself a 'businessman' do you just pick up your investigative notes, (and your common sense) and go home?
IN short, dear reader.....an empire is most certainly not defined as a political entity 'run by an emperor' (which is, after all, simply a tautology)....It is any poliltical entity which seeks (and succeeds) in hegemonizing / colonizing other weaker countries (preferably via economic coercion though often through military conquest)...The US Empire merely couches its conquests in verbiage like 'spheres of interest', 'humanitarian' crusades, 'war on terrorism' and so forth....
("Humanitarian" crusade....(The label affixed to the conquest of - *socialist* - Yugoslavia).....I mean, does anyone seriously believe the Pentagon is some sort of international social welfare agency?
Allister....re: your last note (on Kuwait)....The actual goings on behind (i.e. historical context and covert intrigue) the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait is a fascinating affair on one I have ( a couple of times now) promised to 'pontificate' on....I'll try and get 'round to it this week..
* * *
Finally, let me make a 'charge' of my own..(you know, 'a good offense'....)
I've made mention of scores of events, facts and figures that most of you have only been too selective in responding to...
So....why doesn't somene answer just a *few* of my past 'claims', i.e.:
a) School of the Americas (name recently changed..),the US's pedagogical training ground for the death squad riddled military elites of Latin America over the past 30 years.
b)...and for that matter, the US sponsoring of brutal right-wing regimes throughout the world; its subversion and overthrow of literally dozens of democratically gov'ts throughout the world..both post and pre-WW2
i.e. El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, Hondouras, Argentina, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Colombia, Chile, Venezuela, Panama, Bolivia, Jamaica, Angola, Mozambique, the Congo, Indonesia, East Timor, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam,
...am I boring you?..In any case, that should do for now.
c) The $4 - $6 billion CIA operation that destroyed Afghanistan and created the Taliban and al Quaida....(Mujahideen forces, by the way, were employed by the US throughout the Yugoslovian conflict - and in Chechnya against the Russians - with the explicit cooperation of bin Laden)
d) Madeleine Albright's confirmation of (primarily) US sanctions having killed (up to the at time alone) 500,000 Iraqi children i.e. over a 9/11 's worth every month for over a decade.
e) The US's nearly $400 billion dollar 'defense' budget....greater than the combined budgets of the next largest 15 or so countries combined. i.e. 'wmd' coming out of their asses...and the fact that even common sense alone suggests that a nation that spends that much is not 'out to 'defend itself'....it's out to control the globe.
As for this last point, please respond specifically to the fact that *I* am accused of bias and of being totally and incorrigably 'skewed' while your complete DENIAL of the significance of that 'defense' budget apparently exempts you from precisely that charge..
Indeed, just to press the case further, a number of you have already admitted that you, more or less, don't *care* what the arguments are...just that you believe in your country 'right or wrong'....In otherwords explain to me how, having (some of you) stated your own quite blatant bias right up front, your arguments are not now wholly tinged with this same bias.
Remember....I, after all, have no ostensible axe to grind...I'm one of you (i.e. a middle class, bourgeois North American)...who grew up believing in *exactly* the same fairy-tale realilty as you...
Now answer the charges.......please.
Anton
...Though come to think of it, perhaps not the *American press*. After all, as biased and elitist driven as is the corporate press in Canada in Western Europe, there is simply no comparison there to the sort of ideological indoctrination practised in the heart of empire...
I suspect, in fact, that he (Kristov) misread the figures I gave for *Kosovo* for the figures accruing from the earlier Croation and Bosnian conflicts
(Upon both of which, by the way, hang a long tale of Machiavellian intrigue by American and German economic, military and covert forces to fractionate Yugoslavia immediately following the death of Tito.....but that, as they say is another story, a very involved one at that ....)
And, of course, my use of the Kosovo conflict was *only* bv way of an *example* of blatant and profound media propaganda...i.e. it wasn't meant to dispose of the entire Yuogslavian tale in a quick statement..
...As usual (some of) you guys read selectively ...and erroneously at that.
..But then, I really shouldn't be answering Kristov's charges at all as he has (once again) thrown up his hands proclaiming...though failing in any demonstable way to prove....my 'skewedness' ..and thus implied lack of credibility.
This is an old refrain from Kristov....a tiring one at that. But since others have mumbled similar calumnies of late..let me respond.
..Stick to the argument. Respnd to the facts. If you don't believe the stats, figures and historical events I submit before you....fine. Go look them up and show me I'm wrong.
(And here let me proffer some sort of post and pre-emptive apology for always seeming to 'pull rank' with reams of facts, dates and figures....I know, it must be irritating....Its's irritating for me to *have to always do it*...UNFORTUNATELY..there's simply no way 'round such a necessity....Historical context and the historical record are what they are..If you don't know it, well...that's not my 'problem'....just my burden).
* * *
As for all the talk of the UN...I don't know where to start. You're sentiments and notions are so contradictory.
In any case, most of what I read revealed an incredible arrogance for world opinion - indeed, the very imperial mindset you all seem so quick to dismiss...(Then you wonder why everyone 'hates' you).
It seems as if you actually buy into Bush's patently imbecilic logic that if the UN doesn't accord with US demands....it's 'irrelevant'....
..Funny (what with all the earlier talk about 'contracts' and treaties' being inviolable and all), but I would think that if *one* country intends to thwart the will of the vast majority (almost *all* of non-aligned countries have expressed opposition to an unprovoked attack on Iraq, as well as three of the permanent security council states), simply by virtue of the fact that it has the arrogance and power to do so....
...well, it's not the UN that is irrelevant...what's irrelevant is any claim by the US to be acting within any international legal framework. It is the US which is forfeiting any international legitimacy...
But then we know that that's precisely the point of *imperial prerogative*, isn't it?...Might makes right, period. Rational discussion, not to mention, justice and truth, is totally beside the point.....But, of course, some sort of ideological justification is always 'nice'...and, indeed, necessary to get the domestic plebs to support and pay for it.
All this is notwithstanding the fact that the UN has virtually always been a plaything of the US since its creation....i.e. Washington has universally defied and ignored it when it didn't get its way (which it almost always does by virtue of bribery and coercion), and only supported it when they could gain some cheap advantage by doing so.
And as for the slamming of France for its involvement with Iraq....well, there's the pot calling the kettle black. The US was for decades the main supplier of arms to Iraq ...including chemical weapons which it didn't give a shit about because Iraq was then prosecuting American interests (fighting the Iranians - remember, 1,000,000 killed) in the Gulf....Once again, the astounding hypocrisy.
As for someone saying the US is not an empire because it doesn't hava an "emperor"....
Please....are you really that naive? Was the British Empire run by an 'emperor'? (It was run, somewhat like the US, by an oligarchy of financial, military and upper class interests)
I mean, c'mon...if a mafia don calls himself a 'businessman' do you just pick up your investigative notes, (and your common sense) and go home?
IN short, dear reader.....an empire is most certainly not defined as a political entity 'run by an emperor' (which is, after all, simply a tautology)....It is any poliltical entity which seeks (and succeeds) in hegemonizing / colonizing other weaker countries (preferably via economic coercion though often through military conquest)...The US Empire merely couches its conquests in verbiage like 'spheres of interest', 'humanitarian' crusades, 'war on terrorism' and so forth....
("Humanitarian" crusade....(The label affixed to the conquest of - *socialist* - Yugoslavia).....I mean, does anyone seriously believe the Pentagon is some sort of international social welfare agency?
Allister....re: your last note (on Kuwait)....The actual goings on behind (i.e. historical context and covert intrigue) the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait is a fascinating affair on one I have ( a couple of times now) promised to 'pontificate' on....I'll try and get 'round to it this week..
* * *
Finally, let me make a 'charge' of my own..(you know, 'a good offense'....)
I've made mention of scores of events, facts and figures that most of you have only been too selective in responding to...
So....why doesn't somene answer just a *few* of my past 'claims', i.e.:
a) School of the Americas (name recently changed..),the US's pedagogical training ground for the death squad riddled military elites of Latin America over the past 30 years.
b)...and for that matter, the US sponsoring of brutal right-wing regimes throughout the world; its subversion and overthrow of literally dozens of democratically gov'ts throughout the world..both post and pre-WW2
i.e. El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, Hondouras, Argentina, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Colombia, Chile, Venezuela, Panama, Bolivia, Jamaica, Angola, Mozambique, the Congo, Indonesia, East Timor, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam,
...am I boring you?..In any case, that should do for now.
c) The $4 - $6 billion CIA operation that destroyed Afghanistan and created the Taliban and al Quaida....(Mujahideen forces, by the way, were employed by the US throughout the Yugoslovian conflict - and in Chechnya against the Russians - with the explicit cooperation of bin Laden)
d) Madeleine Albright's confirmation of (primarily) US sanctions having killed (up to the at time alone) 500,000 Iraqi children i.e. over a 9/11 's worth every month for over a decade.
e) The US's nearly $400 billion dollar 'defense' budget....greater than the combined budgets of the next largest 15 or so countries combined. i.e. 'wmd' coming out of their asses...and the fact that even common sense alone suggests that a nation that spends that much is not 'out to 'defend itself'....it's out to control the globe.
As for this last point, please respond specifically to the fact that *I* am accused of bias and of being totally and incorrigably 'skewed' while your complete DENIAL of the significance of that 'defense' budget apparently exempts you from precisely that charge..
Indeed, just to press the case further, a number of you have already admitted that you, more or less, don't *care* what the arguments are...just that you believe in your country 'right or wrong'....In otherwords explain to me how, having (some of you) stated your own quite blatant bias right up front, your arguments are not now wholly tinged with this same bias.
Remember....I, after all, have no ostensible axe to grind...I'm one of you (i.e. a middle class, bourgeois North American)...who grew up believing in *exactly* the same fairy-tale realilty as you...
Now answer the charges.......please.
Anton
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:51 am
"empire":lol:
"facts":rotflmao:
Sorry, Anton. I think it's already been determined that when someone does put up info to counter your "facts" (sorry, still can't stop laughing), you counter it with something about us being ignorant or duped by info/propaganda sources. Since we're not privy to your infallible, ultra-clandestine sources, there's not much we can do.
Good day.
- Anton
by Anton » Tue Mar 11, 2003 4:18 pm
You forget or ignore gentlemen that your inability (through lack of knowledge) to address my facts and arguments is, once again, not my problem....If you don't have counter info then at least just admit that you don't know for the time being and stop pronouncing as if you 'knew' the opposite...
Moreover, the 'facts' I cite are not "clandestine"...They are simple and indelible imprints in the historical record which can be accessed in literally hundreds of ks, thousands of online articles, essays and documents....They're only 'clandestine' to you.
In addition, I am *one* person trying with very limited time (yes, indeed, I very much 'have a life'....a very busy one) to address multiple 'challenges' by multiple people.....But then you *know* this which marks *that* criticism (as so many) as simply disingenuous.
Let me go further....
You claim that I don't listen or respond to your arguments...but the thing is, I've heard these same bullshit 'arguments' for 25 years. I, after all, as I stated before, was once one of you, ie. a rootin', hollerin', rah-rah-rah, my-country-right-or-wrong no-nothing who ....
And I didn't just change or 'transform' overnight, but only after having, over many years, witnessed blatant contradiction after contradicition in the pablum I was being fed by the media...and then actually making the effort to go and find out for myself what the hell was really going on.
All you guys do is parrot back to me gov't propaganda and call that an argument....irrespective of the fact that you admit you often unable to address the information I present to you.
I'll go even further....
Because I once was (while quite young, mind you) not much different in my opinions and knowledge...I believe I understand why you can interpret the simple fact that the US outspends on defense the *cumulative total of the next 15 or so nearest military rivals* as some sort of 'defensive' posture (rather than as common - historical - sense would suggest is a nation bent on establishing hegemonic control over much of the globe)...
..You IDENTIFY with a more-or-less totally abstract political notion like 'nation' or 'country'....Like all of us, such identification (I know...I've experienced it) allows one to experience vicariously the exploits of power, of the glory of empire, of the self-righteousness of being the one true, moral force on Earth......It's bullshit....Common sense, alone should lead you to realize *that* independent of reams of statistics...
....Powerful nations have *always* sought to dominate and control and exploit weaker ones....Yet you're *so sure* that in this particular historical epoch (precisely when the most powerful nation ever to have existed on Earth is ascendent) that your precious American rulers are not sending you (and the world) down the same path that powerful nations have always trodden...
...My arguments are so 'skewed', so 'naive', so 'biased'....
Well then why don't we listen to someone who might know..
At the Nuremberg Trials following WW2, the arch Nazi propagandist, Hermann Goering had this to say about war and hegomony:
"Why, of course, people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war, neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in Germany. That is understood, But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship."
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacmakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
..In any case, my loyalties are not to 'countries', 'nations' or such (as though these were some sort of monolithic political entities unriven by vastly polarized class interests)...
... but to human beings...and this miraculous, beautiful blue orb.....period. The rest is mystifying bullshit.
Anton
Moreover, the 'facts' I cite are not "clandestine"...They are simple and indelible imprints in the historical record which can be accessed in literally hundreds of ks, thousands of online articles, essays and documents....They're only 'clandestine' to you.
In addition, I am *one* person trying with very limited time (yes, indeed, I very much 'have a life'....a very busy one) to address multiple 'challenges' by multiple people.....But then you *know* this which marks *that* criticism (as so many) as simply disingenuous.
Let me go further....
You claim that I don't listen or respond to your arguments...but the thing is, I've heard these same bullshit 'arguments' for 25 years. I, after all, as I stated before, was once one of you, ie. a rootin', hollerin', rah-rah-rah, my-country-right-or-wrong no-nothing who ....
And I didn't just change or 'transform' overnight, but only after having, over many years, witnessed blatant contradiction after contradicition in the pablum I was being fed by the media...and then actually making the effort to go and find out for myself what the hell was really going on.
All you guys do is parrot back to me gov't propaganda and call that an argument....irrespective of the fact that you admit you often unable to address the information I present to you.
I'll go even further....
Because I once was (while quite young, mind you) not much different in my opinions and knowledge...I believe I understand why you can interpret the simple fact that the US outspends on defense the *cumulative total of the next 15 or so nearest military rivals* as some sort of 'defensive' posture (rather than as common - historical - sense would suggest is a nation bent on establishing hegemonic control over much of the globe)...
..You IDENTIFY with a more-or-less totally abstract political notion like 'nation' or 'country'....Like all of us, such identification (I know...I've experienced it) allows one to experience vicariously the exploits of power, of the glory of empire, of the self-righteousness of being the one true, moral force on Earth......It's bullshit....Common sense, alone should lead you to realize *that* independent of reams of statistics...
....Powerful nations have *always* sought to dominate and control and exploit weaker ones....Yet you're *so sure* that in this particular historical epoch (precisely when the most powerful nation ever to have existed on Earth is ascendent) that your precious American rulers are not sending you (and the world) down the same path that powerful nations have always trodden...
...My arguments are so 'skewed', so 'naive', so 'biased'....
Well then why don't we listen to someone who might know..
At the Nuremberg Trials following WW2, the arch Nazi propagandist, Hermann Goering had this to say about war and hegomony:
"Why, of course, people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war, neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in Germany. That is understood, But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship."
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacmakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
..In any case, my loyalties are not to 'countries', 'nations' or such (as though these were some sort of monolithic political entities unriven by vastly polarized class interests)...
... but to human beings...and this miraculous, beautiful blue orb.....period. The rest is mystifying bullshit.
Anton
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Tue Mar 11, 2003 5:00 pm
Well, Anton...we have something somewhat in common....
I used to believe the kind of stuff you do now, and I also underwent a similar kind of "transformation" as you did. Only we went in different directions.
As far as info is concerned, I know how to find it, as should everyone else here. I was only pointing out how you try to heavily discredit EVERY source that any of us try to quote.
The simple truth is that many of us pick and choose info that we wish to present. Any of us saying otherwise is dishonest. You can't just say that all of our sources are blatant propaganda if at the same time you insist that all your sources are lily-white clean.
I know how to find anti-American information. Usually it's all the same crap I've heard or read before. I'm sure you believe pro-American info is crap (if you know how to find it).
Yes, powerful nations make mistakes; that can't be denied.
BTW, you say that the US aided those in Afghanistan to create a Vietnam-like quagmire for the Soviets. But you also say later that it was to intentionally destabilize Afghanistan. Which is it? They can't both be true. A destabilized Afghanistan would be impotent against a powerful USSR, therefore, no quagmire.
Call me naive if you wish.
I used to believe the kind of stuff you do now, and I also underwent a similar kind of "transformation" as you did. Only we went in different directions.
As far as info is concerned, I know how to find it, as should everyone else here. I was only pointing out how you try to heavily discredit EVERY source that any of us try to quote.
The simple truth is that many of us pick and choose info that we wish to present. Any of us saying otherwise is dishonest. You can't just say that all of our sources are blatant propaganda if at the same time you insist that all your sources are lily-white clean.
I know how to find anti-American information. Usually it's all the same crap I've heard or read before. I'm sure you believe pro-American info is crap (if you know how to find it).
Yes, powerful nations make mistakes; that can't be denied.
BTW, you say that the US aided those in Afghanistan to create a Vietnam-like quagmire for the Soviets. But you also say later that it was to intentionally destabilize Afghanistan. Which is it? They can't both be true. A destabilized Afghanistan would be impotent against a powerful USSR, therefore, no quagmire.
Call me naive if you wish.
by Kristov » Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:29 pm
Anton..you failed to mention..agian..that the 'democratic government' of Afghanistan that the US helped to disrupt was actually the puppet government set up by the USSR, not one actually put in power by the people...or did that little fact, once again, escape your notice?
You also mention places like Vietnam..which was something the French dragged us into. You, once again, failed to mention the facts of the actual case..France and Vietnam having been going at it for years and years..etc, etc. All part of the historical record I might add, of both France and Vietnam, totally free of any American bias.
As for Kosovo and the Balkan situation..as I said, I have friends living there NOW and who left there to come here over the past few years. I'll take the word of people actually living the event over government reports or media reports any day. When an uncle or aunt or entire branches of your family cease to exist, and someone writes up an 'official report' stating they didn't, maybe you'll understand...but then again..if the right 'officials' write it up, maybe you'd believe it.
We, all of us here, have brought up information contrary to what you've stated, and you've shot it all down without anything but 'my sources are better' or that our sources are biased/impartial/flat out lying.
You are obviously extremely anti-American, so much so that you really don't care what proof any of us may show, you simply won't allow it as anything but fiction. I've seen the exact same thing many times before concerning religous issues. Typical of these fanatics, which is exactly what they are, nothing shown for proof against their views is 'real', it's always a lie. So, hey, say whatever, think whatever, you actually have the freedom to do so because of the country you hate so much and it's government. I may dislike what you espouse, but, I will defend to the death your righ to espouse it.
I get the feeling you wouldn't do the same for me..or anyone for that matter.
You also mention places like Vietnam..which was something the French dragged us into. You, once again, failed to mention the facts of the actual case..France and Vietnam having been going at it for years and years..etc, etc. All part of the historical record I might add, of both France and Vietnam, totally free of any American bias.
As for Kosovo and the Balkan situation..as I said, I have friends living there NOW and who left there to come here over the past few years. I'll take the word of people actually living the event over government reports or media reports any day. When an uncle or aunt or entire branches of your family cease to exist, and someone writes up an 'official report' stating they didn't, maybe you'll understand...but then again..if the right 'officials' write it up, maybe you'd believe it.
We, all of us here, have brought up information contrary to what you've stated, and you've shot it all down without anything but 'my sources are better' or that our sources are biased/impartial/flat out lying.
You are obviously extremely anti-American, so much so that you really don't care what proof any of us may show, you simply won't allow it as anything but fiction. I've seen the exact same thing many times before concerning religous issues. Typical of these fanatics, which is exactly what they are, nothing shown for proof against their views is 'real', it's always a lie. So, hey, say whatever, think whatever, you actually have the freedom to do so because of the country you hate so much and it's government. I may dislike what you espouse, but, I will defend to the death your righ to espouse it.
I get the feeling you wouldn't do the same for me..or anyone for that matter.
The enemy is attacking, let us prey.
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Wed Mar 12, 2003 12:42 am
Originally posted by El Cid
I would agree with you on that last point Kristov, except I think Anton's a Canadian. But nice to read your post.
Kristov knows that Anton is Canadian. But which evil neighboring country is the one whose military protects his precious Canadian rights and sovereignty?
What would Brian Boitano do?:D
- Rule of Wrist
by Rule of Wrist » Wed Mar 12, 2003 1:26 am
From the dictionary:
Empire—n.
1. 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.
2. a government under an emperor or empress.
3. (often cap.) the historical period during which a nation is under such a government: a history of the second French empire.
4. supreme power in governing; imperial power; sovereignty: Austria's failure of empire in central Europe.
5. supreme control; absolute sway: passion's empire over the mind.
6. a powerful and important enterprise or holding of large scope that is controlled by a single person, family, or group of associates: The family's shipping empire was founded 50 years ago.
7. (cap.) a variety of apple somewhat resembling the McIntosh.
Let's look at this.
def. 1. Is the US a country or group of countries or states ruled by an emperor, king, sovereign monarch or the equavilent? US Constitution says: NO. US is ruled by an elected congress, elected president, and appointed Supreme court, all with specifically delineated duties and powers. Any powers not held by these three entities are delegated to the (50)States or "the people". This is called a system of checks and balances. (High school level US history and Civics)
def. 2. Is answered by def. 1 answer.
def. 3. Since def 1 does not apply, then this is not a time of imperial rule by the US.
def 4. Does the US have supreme power in governing? Over its own borders, (ostensibly)yes. Outside of those borders? Every other government in the world says: NO (where's Richard Dawson when you need him...)
def 5. Does the US hold supreme control and absolute sway over the rest of the world? All other governments in the world say: NO (again). I cite the current US disagreement with France, Germany and Russia as examples. Also, as a question to think about, how much influence does the US have over Chinese politics? China has a few people and a little land last time I viewed a globe.
def. 6. Is the US an "enterprise" controlled by a single entity, person, family or association? This was answered in def. 1. US is controlled by three seperate entities (at least) that share power and are often in disagreement. If anyone thinks that these groups march in lockstep, they picked a bad week to stop sniffing glue. I cite any congressional hearing on CSPAN as evidence.
def. 7. Is the US a variety of apple resembling the Mcintosh? With all due respect to Steve Jobs, I would have to say: NO.
So, from this, what conclusion can be drawn, Anton? The obvious conclusion is that all of your accusations of the US being an empire are completely false. If you are substituting the word empire (and imperialism) for the word hegemony, then that is a blatant attempt at misleading your readers.
Hegemony—n.
1. leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation.
2. leadership; predominance.
3. (esp. among smaller nations) aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination.
I will not break down these definitions as it is a much shorter definition. I see two possible interpretations. One is benign leadership and influance exercised by one nation over others. The other is malicious expansionism and attempts by a larger nation to totally control smaller(weaker) nations through aggressive means. This is closer to what (I assume)you mean.
This is a valid argument based on the evidence you provide. However, based on the evidence provided by people such as Doug, Ralph, Kristov, et al, the opposite definition of "hegemony" could be construed as well. Or even that world hegemony is not the goal of the US.
So the arguments from both sides cancel each other. So what is left? Anton's side (forgive me if I missed it) has yet to offer any positive solutions or visions of a way forward. Doug, ralph, et al, have offered numerous suggestions and possible solutions for a way forward. This is why there are more people on their side here(and throughout the US). I submit that people will look to positive solutions more eagerly and willingly than they will to negative invective and exaggeration.
So the question is, what do you think should be done with the current Iraq situation, Anton?
WE are willing to listen....
(As far as answering your lettered questions a couple of posts back, my response is that I do not validate inaccurate arguments by responding to them.)
Empire—n.
1. 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.
2. a government under an emperor or empress.
3. (often cap.) the historical period during which a nation is under such a government: a history of the second French empire.
4. supreme power in governing; imperial power; sovereignty: Austria's failure of empire in central Europe.
5. supreme control; absolute sway: passion's empire over the mind.
6. a powerful and important enterprise or holding of large scope that is controlled by a single person, family, or group of associates: The family's shipping empire was founded 50 years ago.
7. (cap.) a variety of apple somewhat resembling the McIntosh.
Let's look at this.
def. 1. Is the US a country or group of countries or states ruled by an emperor, king, sovereign monarch or the equavilent? US Constitution says: NO. US is ruled by an elected congress, elected president, and appointed Supreme court, all with specifically delineated duties and powers. Any powers not held by these three entities are delegated to the (50)States or "the people". This is called a system of checks and balances. (High school level US history and Civics)
def. 2. Is answered by def. 1 answer.
def. 3. Since def 1 does not apply, then this is not a time of imperial rule by the US.
def 4. Does the US have supreme power in governing? Over its own borders, (ostensibly)yes. Outside of those borders? Every other government in the world says: NO (where's Richard Dawson when you need him...)
def 5. Does the US hold supreme control and absolute sway over the rest of the world? All other governments in the world say: NO (again). I cite the current US disagreement with France, Germany and Russia as examples. Also, as a question to think about, how much influence does the US have over Chinese politics? China has a few people and a little land last time I viewed a globe.
def. 6. Is the US an "enterprise" controlled by a single entity, person, family or association? This was answered in def. 1. US is controlled by three seperate entities (at least) that share power and are often in disagreement. If anyone thinks that these groups march in lockstep, they picked a bad week to stop sniffing glue. I cite any congressional hearing on CSPAN as evidence.
def. 7. Is the US a variety of apple resembling the Mcintosh? With all due respect to Steve Jobs, I would have to say: NO.
So, from this, what conclusion can be drawn, Anton? The obvious conclusion is that all of your accusations of the US being an empire are completely false. If you are substituting the word empire (and imperialism) for the word hegemony, then that is a blatant attempt at misleading your readers.
Hegemony—n.
1. leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation.
2. leadership; predominance.
3. (esp. among smaller nations) aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination.
I will not break down these definitions as it is a much shorter definition. I see two possible interpretations. One is benign leadership and influance exercised by one nation over others. The other is malicious expansionism and attempts by a larger nation to totally control smaller(weaker) nations through aggressive means. This is closer to what (I assume)you mean.
This is a valid argument based on the evidence you provide. However, based on the evidence provided by people such as Doug, Ralph, Kristov, et al, the opposite definition of "hegemony" could be construed as well. Or even that world hegemony is not the goal of the US.
So the arguments from both sides cancel each other. So what is left? Anton's side (forgive me if I missed it) has yet to offer any positive solutions or visions of a way forward. Doug, ralph, et al, have offered numerous suggestions and possible solutions for a way forward. This is why there are more people on their side here(and throughout the US). I submit that people will look to positive solutions more eagerly and willingly than they will to negative invective and exaggeration.
So the question is, what do you think should be done with the current Iraq situation, Anton?
WE are willing to listen....
(As far as answering your lettered questions a couple of posts back, my response is that I do not validate inaccurate arguments by responding to them.)
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Wed Mar 12, 2003 10:25 am
Here's an interesting piece about "good" Americans.
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,207~12026~1234836,00.html
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,207~12026~1234836,00.html
- El Cid
by El Cid » Wed Mar 12, 2003 2:29 pm
Thanks for posting the definitions Rule of Wrist. Obviously Anton has trouble with anything that involves being accurate. As your definition includes (your post could be great if you referenced the dictioanary you cited) talk about the British Empire in def. 1, it reminds me of Antons rebuttal to my criticism of the US in his language as an empire. Anton said something like everyone knew the British Empire was an Empire even though it didn't have an emperor, which was true, except that it in no way helped Antons argument, so I fail to see his reason for citing.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests