Printable View
Spending as much as the rest of the world combined on military matters, having English becoming the de-facto language of international business and relations, with outposts and leased bases all around the globe and carrier battlegroups roaming as necessary... it tends to reinforce the idea of Empire, or whatever character.
If the US doesn't colonise, then what do you call Puerto Rico or Gitmo or Mid Way or US Virgin Islands, to name a few...semantics or splitting hairs here..;)
I think the US and the Europeans have different views on "colonisation" as well as "democracies".
Compared to Britain in it's heyday, that's not really colonization. And Guantanamo is (at least on paper) still something that Cuba has "ultimate sovereignty" over. (In actuality, I consider the designation to be bunk.)
It's not so much "colonize and control" as "build bases and extend the ability to project military power". (I make no value judgement on the latter, emphasis on 'ability'.)
Terr - not to mention Trident-class submarines & the NY Yankees (the finest team 10 uberzillion dollars can buy) :D
My one question is this though. Aren't empires historically autocratic? I would say if anything, I think the US is more an oligarchy (Sparta was an example of an oligarchy).
Sometimes it makes my head spin because the US encompasses so many characteristics that it's hard to say what exactly the US is. (Take a quick look at plutocracy, socialistic democracy, & oligarchy to see what I mean).
Maybe the US is a "plutosocialoligarchy capitalmilitaristic democratic republic"
Try fitting that on a $1 bill.
p.s. - I hate the Yankees :eek:
(I wouldn't say the wankees are the finest team any amount of money could buy. They might look like it to someone that doesn't really know baseball, like Mr. Steinführer, for instance, but not to someone that knows the game).
An Empire basically is any Nation that has grown to such proportions as to effect the known world by it's social, political, and economic power.
I don't see any other Nation today having the all-encompassing affect that the US does on a world-wide stage.
To be an Empire...virtually every country in the known world at the time has to feel your presence...and be affected by it.
In this day n' age..that IS the US. ;)
I think the real difference is that the Europeans conducted the administration of the "host" country in all affairs, which is oppressive to the locals (India for example), the American version of "colonisation" is more about commerce or capatalisim, all those little US bases that dot the planet inject billions into local communities (Germany has a couple) and you have to know that if a local politician of say an island like Luzon (where Subic Bay Naval base is situated) wanted to impose restrictions on the US Navy's ability to conduct it's affairs that a call from the Secretary of Defense to that country's president/dictator/despot/prime minister/chancellor telling them that if their little poppinjay didn't back off that the US would consider removing it's presence from there, how many local people would be affected either through loss of employment or loss of revenue, to this extent it is a form of "colonisation", just the sovereign country doesn't know it...so it's a subtle form, where as the European version was more pronounced...you cannot say that US economics does not in some form or another dictate another countries domestic policies, to the detriment of their own citizens (farmers for an example).Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr
Bad Saddam...gone for good...:halo: (trying to stay OT here)
Well...actually...the economic benefit from any US presence, be it a military or tourism, be it economic development or trade, is not really being colonial...it's being capitalistic. ;)
The US capitalizes upon their economic and military interests around the world, sometimes countries benefit from it, sometimes not...exertion of political power again is not really colonialism...
we could argue that the effect could be the same...the effect upon the host country could be the same as if it was colonized...
but...still...it's not really the same thing. ;)
Hi EG~, when I was studying economics at highschool and university this was called "neo-colonialism" :)
True...the effect can be the same.
It was a mistake to kill him. It was always destined to be a farce.
Sure he deserved it, many times over but in the grand scheme of things his death has caused more problems and solved few, if any.
The new Iraqi government has screwed up its first major test of 'justice' and allowed Saddam to die a martyr.
He should have been locked away and afforded every medical aid to ensure he became a decrepit senile old man. It's hard to have someone as your figurehead who pisses and shits themselves, dribbles and can't string a sentence of words together.
Yet another f^ck up. Bushy and Bliar prepare for ignominy.
ah .... That is the point I was trying to make.
It was a mistake....and the recording of the event sickened me
nuf said
MLF
I don't think Saddam's execution was a mistake. If you want to start pointing fingers, might as well go back to the Clinton Administration. Bush Jr. had to deal with Clinton's unfinished business (and you can throw Osama Bin Laden in that mess too).
The whole claim of WMD's isn't just a "Bushy" agenda. Clinton repeatedly uttered those very same words:
Quote:
If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program
Quote:
They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors
and I love this one -Quote:
So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people
I can't even count how many times Clinton said "WMD" in this transcript:Quote:
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html
So don't go yapping about how Bush Jr. just made up the WMD myth to attack Iraq. I believe it was Clinton's incompetence that forced Bush Jr. to have to deal with the mess left behind.
And as for letting Saddam live? Yeah that would work. Remember when they pulled a weak and sickly Saddam out of his underground hideout? The guy was still defiant and all that did was fuel anti-US opposition.
That's what we need. Let him live in a nice federal prison while our tax dollars feed and cloth him. Let him live so he can write a best-selling book that further undermines the already tarnished global image of the US.
Christ. Sometimes I swear people don't think before they post in here.
To all the anti-Bush lemmings. Try opening up a Poli Sci book and reading. The ignorant rants are getting old. "Bush invented WMD's to invade Iraq" "Bush Jr. is finishing daddy's war" "It was all for oil" "It's Bush's fault that the US is outsourcing so many jobs". blah blah blah. Just because you got into politics 2 years ago doesn't justify ignoring all political history prior to Bush Jr.
Just because I have a different outlook\opinion on things.....
doesnt mean I dont think :rolleyes:
MLF
Many valid points are being made, let's just please remember the object is to make a point, not hurl an insult. :)
ShagDevil: So it's all Clinton's fault? Hey, don't forget Bush Sr. in the list, eh? His administration continued to support Saddam with chemical and biological exports even after the alleged gassing of the kurds in Halabjah!
The difference between Clinton and Bush Jr. is that Clinton's administration, however much they talked about WMDs, didn't think the situation was so critical (and well-documented enough) to invade and take over the country. In contrast during the run up to the war, the Bush administration had glowing predictions of "We know where the WMDs are" and a "just you wait and see" thing going on. Furthermore, I believe that Clinton held that the situation was at least temporarily contained after Desert Fox.
Back to Saddam: There was no need to rush the trial, and no likelihood that Saddam could teleport out of jail and magically become dictator again. IMO it would have been far better to have a long, thorough trial, followed by life in prison. Instead we've got a situation where it looks almost like he was lynched by a crowd and men in masks rather than simple execution of (and by) the law.
What I find sad/stupid/funny is that a majority of westerner's think that Arabs should be able to form a democracy. What a concept, most Arabs excluding those that hold all the money haven't a clue what democracy is all about, they are purely tribal, and that's why those guards were letting Saddam have an earful.
This shite goes back before Christ, it's called blood feuds, why do you think they are having such a hard time convincing all the "warlords" in Afghanistan or along the Pakistan border to embrace Democracy, they aint stupid, they have built up their fiefdoms over centuries and they certainly are not going to let the white man ruin it for them.
until all the tribes are brought together (hell freezes over maybe first) and can live in harmony (buy a coke), there will never be a functioning democratic government in the middle east....maybe 2 or 3 hundred years from now...:rolleyes:
As for Sadddam, better a dead Saddam then a beacon of hope for his tribe by letting him live, sure he's a Martyr right now, but it will fade over time, but if he were allowed to live, he would be a sore point for all those who opposed him, either before the war or after...
Terr,
But Clinton did see it as critical enough to launch a military campaign intent on crippling Iraq's ability to deploy/use weapons of mass destruction.Quote:
Clinton's administration, however much they talked about WMDs, didn't think the situation was so critical (and well-documented enough) to invade and take over the country
Now, I don't want to split hairs on what "invade" means. I believe you meant that Clinton had no intentions of occupying Iraq (Clinton did however hint at wanting to reform the Iraqi government).
I don't put sole blame on Clinton. Hell, we can go as far back as Ronald Reagan if we want to point fingers. I know Bush Jr is no saint. He's done quite a few things I disagree with. But, everyone has had a share in this debacle -from Reagan to Bush Jr.Quote:
So it's all Clinton's fault?
I'm just tired of the blatent ignorance. When sh*t hits the fan, it's always Bush Jr's fault. It's permeating throughout this thread and it makes me nauseous that people have become so politically ignorant.
My apologies for lashing out and insulting anyone. But I feel equally insulted that so many people pretend to have a genuine interest in politics but don't take the time to actually read all the political history that occured long before Bush Jr. took office. Yet, they have no problem expressing their anti-Bush sentiments.
I dont like him....never have..
I didnt like his daddy either..
I guess I would be a democrat if I was american
I would have voted for Gore ...like the majority of americans did.....
MLF
Since this is a technology forum, I'll put it this way: both parties generate fatal errors. The democratic party appears more user-friendly. The republican party appears more secure. In each case, the raw data doesn't match windows API. Check for rootkits.
ahh...now I get it ;)
thanks for simplifing it JPnyc
MLF
When George HW Bush (dad) finished the Desert Storm short of taking Saddam out I was heavily critical against him. He later explained that he felt a "leashed" Saddam was better than the vacuum that would be created by taking him out.
Looking back, my criticism of the first President Bush was wrong as we now have seen what toppling Saddam has wrought.
The current President Bush is a failure. I do not believe the man is evil, however some of his advisers are.
How much will Cheney get from Halliburton for a sign on bonus after his term of VP runs out?
I just find it ironic that these war drum beating neo cons never served in active duty military even though there was a conflict during their "watch". As Cheney said "I had other priorities". If it's such a noble cause why aren't Barbara and Jenna enlisting? War's ok if it's other people dieing?
The scariest thought for me is who the hell is fit for office in the 2008 election.
I am glad he is gone and think the way it was done was fine. MHO about the Saddam issue.
As for the "other" things, they are all small parts to the larger picture I believe. The Iran / Iraq war.... really was the US / Soviet war. We pumped everything to Iraq, the Soviets pumped everything to Iran. It was a "wargame" between the 2 superpowers IMO. I think we are still playing it though.... look who is still pumping money and technology to Iran and other "rogue" nations (N Korea)... the former Soviet Union. They are broke and are looking at aligning themselves with people to help them defeat us (US). Remember the saying "...the enemy of my enemy is my friend..." the Soviets are using this.
What most tree hugging peacenics don't realize is that if Iran or any rogue nation actually gets nuclear power and the ability to deliver it "across the pond", all bets are off and the world will become a very different place. Then, when we do finally go nuclear (and we will I believe), things will change virtually overnight. The Soviets and the US always had a very good deterrent for nuclear war.... MAD or "Mutually Assured Destruction" which basically is the end of the world as we know it. The Middle East wants the end of the world to complete the predictions of their so called "religion".
I believe that we took Iraq and Saddam out for a much larger reason that WMD and his attrocities. It is for the larger part of the overall puzzle of how to keep things from escalating out of hand.
As for Bush, I really liked him in the beginning, but the last 2 years I have not. His vision has gone away and he seems to be "coasting" and leaning away rom his roots. That is why the Dems won so many seats recently. I will not vote for the Hildabeast though no matter what... or Obama. No matter how much I dislike Bush recently, I believe he did a good job with what was handed to him as unemployment is waaaaay down, the tax breaks were nice, stock market is at record levels, and the economy is growing. This isn't just helping the rich, I am middle (and I do mean middle) class but my 401k has really benefited from the last 2 years of the Bush economy.
Not really. We're playing the USSR's role for Afghanistan, rather than our role in Iraq after the Shah was deposed. (Before the Shah was deposed, the Ford administration was trying to send nuclear tech to Iran.)Quote:
Originally Posted by alakhiyar
Well of course the world will be very different: Very big IF clauses deserve very big THEN's. But you also forgot one other component: The will to do so. (Did you know we're giving India nuclear tech even though they're not part of the Nonproliferation treaty?)Quote:
What most tree hugging peacenics don't realize is that if Iran or any rogue nation actually gets nuclear power and the ability to deliver it "across the pond", all bets are off and the world will become a very different place.
Can you clarify about this? The only people I'm aware of who have anything like a modern-day glorious doomsday scenario about their religion are the Christian fundamentalist folks who believe in the Rapture coming etc.Quote:
The Middle East wants the end of the world to complete the predictions of their so called "religion".
Both Christianity and Islam believe in the end of the World, and the second coming of Jesus Christ, and this is mainstream, not fringe sect belief.
Neither believe that this will be a man made event, it will be ordained by God.
;)
Ummm..., no you're not. What you are giving us is nuclear fuel for our power generators. And I hardly think that India can be compared with Iran or North Korea or any other "rogue" nation, since India has a long history of exercising restraint with both our conventional and nuclear capabilities. We could have kicked the ass of our neighbouring countries many times over (well, except China, they'd kick our ass), but despite repeated provocation, we never did.Quote:
(Did you know we're giving India nuclear tech even though they're not part of the Nonproliferation treaty?)
Oh, and we don't need nuclear technology, we already have it.
Cheers,
cgkanchi
India is predominately Hindu with Sikh and Muslim minorities, so it's not likely that they're a threat like the current outlaw fanatic-muslim based nations. Besides as cgkanchi said, India has had nukes for a while now.
Quote:
Not really. We're playing the USSR's role for Afghanistan, rather than our role in Iraq after the Shah was deposed. (Before the Shah was deposed, the Ford administration was trying to send nuclear tech to Iran.)
If you think that the USSR is not involved currently with Iran, you should look closer. The Iranian insurgents that we are catching in Iraq have Soviet hardware, and new hardware, not "surplus"
Quote:
Well of course the world will be very different: Very big IF clauses deserve very big THEN's. But you also forgot one other component: The will to do so. (Did you know we're giving India nuclear tech even though they're not part of the Nonproliferation treaty?)
I believe that this is not "IF" but "WHEN" since the "will to do so" is there. When the Iran leader states "...Isreal should be wiped off the map...", I think the will is there.... JMHO.
Quote:
Can you clarify about this? The only people I'm aware of who have anything like a modern-day glorious doomsday scenario about their religion are the Christian fundamentalist folks who believe in the Rapture coming etc.
I am no expert on Islamic religion, but the radicalist movement wants to "cleans" the world of the evil westerners and will stop at nothing to do so. They are not afraid of "Mutual Destruction" as they believe that when they die in a "Jihad", they will meet the virgins on the other side. To them, mutual destruction is part of the equation, not something feared as it was by the former Soviet Union.
At least that is the way I understand it. But I am far from an expert...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgkanchi
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
I just get antsy when the US appears to be playing favorites between two nuclear-armed nations that have not historically been on the best of terms. (If only there was no Kashmir...)Quote:
And I hardly think that India can be compared with Iran or North Korea or any other "rogue" nation
He's not dead, he's probably in a tropical island surfing the internet on his laptop and reading our comments and laughing away.
Just to interject a couple of items:
1. 'Daddy' didn't go further into Iraq and oust Saddam because he had no mandate to...the mandate of the coalition was to liberate Kuwait and de-moralize the Iraqi military to prevent another invasion...not invade Iraq...not to capture Saddam...if he had gone further into Iraq he would have lost the support of the politically relevant part of the coalition...which was heavily dependent upon the participation of the Arab nations.
2. Regardless of history...regardless of political participation...the fact is the buck stops with the one in office...and the decisions he makes while in office. We presently live in a society where everyone is to blame but the one who is responsible for making the decision...' my parents didn't love me enough ' my parents loved me too much ' ' I was born poor ' ' I lived in a bad neighborhood '...boo hoo...people trying to find excuses to alleviate themselves of personal responsibility for their own decisions and actions...
' junior ' IS responsible for the decisions he makes...you can blame it on Clinton...Daddy...Reagan...or even Jefferson...you can blame it on Daffy Duck for all I care...
the fact is...the buck begins and ends with him ( junior ) and the decisions HE makes while in office.
I don't believe that. I can't show proof or substantiating evidence, but I don't believe we went to war because Dubya was in office. I think Dubya GOT into office because the powers that be wanted to go to war.
Not sure if you are responding to my post or someone else's but...if it's in relation to responsibility, it doesn't matter how he got in or who put him there...whether the powers that be wanted to go to war or not...
the buck still stops with him. ;)
I find a very disturbing trend in society in the last 30 years away from personal responsibility...we are turning into a society of it's everyone's fault but your own.
Whether that's related to criminals, politics, life, addictions, etc...we excuse people's actions based upon the actions of others...
we need to re-inject some responsibility into society...before we end up with a society where no one is responsible for anything.
I believe this is true also....Quote:
Originally Posted by JPnyc
Yes the buck stops with him.....but his whole administration is responsible...
I think that Rummy\Cheney and the likes where pulling the strings.....all comes down to the Bush families ties...to business
MLF
More than just business, in my opinion. Certain covert organizations which have been functioning in the world for probably longer than I've been alive, like Majority 12, the world banking families (rountable of 9) and the trilateral commission, whose attack dog is the CIA, I believe they're behind most things of this nature, regardless of the administration. But the Bush family is 1 of them, and so no string pulling was required.
All string pulling aside...and despite the fact we are all aware of the covert back-door administration of the world as we know it...
the fact is...and this fact never changes...that ' junior ' , or whoever else is in there, still has the power to say ' yes ' or ' no '...
so...we can say he was pressured, that he was coerced, that he may have had a gun to his head...none of that matters...
because he STILL has the personal ability to withhold or give his consent.
Personal responsibility is in the decisions he makes...whether they are under pressure from outside forces or not.
The true power behind any sort of Democracy, whether your version or Parlimentarian is always going to be the lobbyists or corporate big wheels, back in the 1800's it was the coal barons, early 1900's to now is the oil barons, industry will always trump ideology, if the price is right.
As for responsibility.....it is the voter who should bear that responsibility or the one's who don't vote at all and have no real say otherwise.
look in the mirror, if you want to see who is responsible.:halo:
I think the point I'm trying to make is being over-looked.
There are things we cannot apply to a single individual...eg. acid rain, global warming, etc...
And there are things we can ascribe to personal responsibility...eg. I voted to go to war, I voted against raising the social security benefits, etc...
any time you have an opportunity to choose where you stand and what action you are willing to take you are responsible for that decision.
We are all responsible for our decisions.
We live in a society that loves to pass the buck.
Let's assume that the war was a bad idea...
power holders: George we need to go to war
Bush: no
power holders: George we need to go to war
Bush: I won't give you my support
power holders: George we need to go to war
Bush: no
power holders: George we will replace you
Bush: so what
see how easy it is. ;)
JFK said "no". Given what happened to him, I'm not sure that can really be considered a viable option.
My comments above were directly related to ShaqDevils comments of Bush-bashing and his attempts to divert blame away from Bush...so...I injected the discussion of responsibility...so...to continue:
Even if we assume this was a decision that threatened death...and let's further assume he was against it...
let's assume it was like this for the sake of argument...
in a few words:
The COURAGE of ones convictions!
Are Presidents supposed to be cowards?
Let's further assume that he was a coward and accepted a stand he was opposed to...
is he still not responsible for that decision?
Whether he approved of the war or was against it and forced/coerced into it...his decisions still fall upon his shoulders. ;)
Let's stop this trend to blame everyone and everything else for the decisions we make...we are responsible...the buck should stop at our door.