[AceOfHeart]

luke warm, on Mar 31 2006, 09:32 PM, said:

all the bash america posts make me sad... the last stats i have (ca 2003) show that the u.s. gave an estimated $241 billion in charity to the rest of the world, which equals about 2.3 percent of u.s. gross domestic product.... check out how much other 'developed' countries give, as a % of gdp... anybody close?

They will do well to return the 45 trillion++ in debt it owned first. Heck they even have China as their creditor

[mike777]

To borrow from Jonathan Swift here is a Modest Proposal.

Speaking of China why does our Navy protect a province of China. They are still in a Civil War. Why are we involved or in Korea or Darfur or Bosnia. Sure 1 million or more are dying or may but we did not stop Pol Pot in Cambodia and Europe did nothing but were able to help their own. No one hates them for doing nothing.

All of them Civil Wars. Do we really need Tanks in Germany or Planes in Japan or Navy ships in the Phillipines ( another civil war there).

As for the Culture issue is not one culture as good as another? Why do so many in the USA seem to want to impress some version of ours on other countries? We may disagree or not with the Culture of the Taliban or Saudia Arabia or the Red Army but what right do we have to claim any superiority with genocide in our history? Cannot Afghansistan and other countries have a death penalty and pass laws against Apostasy, we have the death penalty.

Why do we protect Kuwait when Iraq makes a claim of ownership? Are we suppose to protect France or England if Rome ever demands its old provinces back as it did in WWII? Why not Spain retaking the Netherlands are we suppose to get involved in that Civil War? Do we really want to get involved if Russia has a Civil War with its old states? Pakistan was part of India why should we get involved in that Civil War over Kashmir? What happens if Scotland, Ireland or Wales rebels against the Iron English fist or Germany wants part of Poland or Austria back in a Civil War?

Everyone hates us and attacks us for poking our nose in why not just stay home and give everyone free homes and health care?

The otherside says better to fight them there than here but why? At best everyone will love us and leave us alone at worst we fight them here in our streets, backyards with dirty bombs going off in our unprotected ports, small pox in the subways or nukes falling on us from afar but at least the dying will be in the USA and not somewhere else where they hate us. Is that not better? ?Why not give Peace a chance?

With a much smaller army and no fancy expensive weapons we can afford so much more for the poor, free education for those that want to go to College or free homes if they want to raise kids with a mom and dad at home to care for them.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Apr 1 2006, 10:56 AM, said:

Grow up...

ouch

Quote

The difference between the US and the France/British boils down to genocide...

Post 1800, the British / French colonial attempts took place in either Eurasia or Africa.  In Eurasia, the native populations had resistence to the same set of germs as the Europeans.  In Africa, the situation was level.  The African's had little resistance against the Europeans but the Europeans also fell vicitim to a wide variety of VERY nasty local diseases.

If we turn to North America, the native inhabitant had virtually no resistence to small pox or influenza.  Equally significant the lack of large scale animal husbandry meant that they didn't have their own "stores" of lethal pathogens.  Disease wiped enormous numbers of native Americans.  Of course, when these diseases didn't spread on their own, the US was more than happy to deliberately supply smallpox laden blankets to be on the safe side.

Our behaviour was no better.  We just made sure that there were no witnesses.

i stand by my remark that america is not an imperialistic nation... with very little effort, cuba could be the 51st state, and at least as many cubans would be for such a state of affairs as would be against one... given the will to do what would be necessary, the oil fields in the middle east would be in the middle of giant exxon and chevron refineries, built no doubt by haliburton... an empire could be carved out, if america took that turn

in any case, i would not have thought that the native resistence to diseases was the determining factor when comparing one imperialistic country to another

peter said:

I said no such thing. The U.S. does have a common culture. What I said is that it is not superior to all other cultures, contrary to the opinion of many in this country.

my apologies

Quote

There is a middle ground between isolationism and imperialism

maybe we have different views as to what makes a country imperailistic... was the roman empire such because it established a 'sphere of influence' in conquered lands? or did it bring those lands under roman rule, answerable to caesar? under whose laws did countries conquered by the british empire live? are you basing your assertion strictly on america's borders, and those people conquered during their establishment? what makes america an empire, in your opinion?

i agree there are middle grounds.. i disagree that america is imperialistic.. i do think that those who seem to criticize us the harshest are the ones who have benefitted the most from our "intervention" into their affairs (though i think "please help" would be a better description than "intervention")

wayne said:

When will America give the Indians back their country?

the usa exists between the canadian border on the north, the mexican border on the south, the atlantic and pacific oceans, and other lands that have asked to join... the borders of all countries are what they are because of internal and/or external struggles... i do not grant that america is imperialistic based upon its present borders

now if we invaded, for example, mexico with the aim of annexing that country and making it a possession, then i'd agree with you... but we've done that (invaded mexico, that is) and conquered it ... and left it as we found it - a soverign nation with its own laws and customs ... minus a few tiny areas such as texas and colorado

cs said:

Quote

QUOTE (luke warm @ Apr 1 2006, 04:09 PM)
sometimes i do wish america would just withdraw from the world stage and take care of all our problems at home... make all points of entry safer (including space), strengthen our education and health systems, ignore the rest of the world until we figure out how to make this country better than it is

This wish I certainly share

no you don't... you might think you do, but it wouldn't take long for you to see your error (imo)

mike said:

To borrow from Jonothan Swift here is a Modest Proposal.

even so, sometimes i wish we'd do those things... if america did withdraw as in the picture you painted, it wouldn't take very long for other nations to change their minds... some would do so immediately (taiwan, south korea, kuwait, even japan)

i know (or at least i hope) that most of the people posting don't actually *hate* america (though there are those who do)... it's just that people seem to forget all the good america has done for so many people for so long... and when people even go so far as to blame the usa for what happened 9/11, it makes me want to puke

[jikl]

This thread should probably be shut down as it could get very vicious. There are things I want to say, but my manners preclude me from doing so. I am sure this is so for many others. Let's leave this alone.

Sean

[Badmonster]

I was also thinking that this thread made me feel kind of sad. I felt like there were things I wanted to say, but that no matter how carefully I worded my post people wouldn't think about what I meant, but would attack it, until I was no longer saying what I meant but was simply entrenched in a position. It's nice when discussions are discussions and not debates.

[the saint]

The world's civilisations have matured at different rates. All the conflicts we continue to see all over the world are because people allow greed and hatred of all kinds to rule their lives and not be mature enough to see that this isn't the answer. Europe had two world wars on its soil and said that enough was enough - we have to get along. What has to happen for the rest of the world to learn this lesson?

The difficulty is that intervening is often as bad as doing nothing. In Iraq, thousands were killed and persecuted before the invasion. Now it gets in the papers. In Iran, the same is happening along religious and tribal lines, but it doesn't get reported.

I see America as a nation that wants to do the right thing but makes a horrible mess of it. I see Europe as a wiser alternative, but moribund by lethargy, beauracracy and a certain amount of self-righteousness. A balance is required between the two.

What sickens me more is how nations with aspirations of influence and greatness do nothing because it is in their interests not to. China has blocked all manner of resolutions on Iran,Iraq, North Korea and Darfur. Certainly in the case of Darfur and Iran, that was oil motivated. In the case of NK it is doing so to tie one hand behind the back of the US, South Korea and Japan. How many people has Kim killed in the name of his populist cult? Why hasn't he been hauled up in front of every humanitarian court going? Not in China's interest. By anyone's definition that counts as accessory to murder.

At least the US has tried to make an effort - however misguided and misjudged it has been. I would argue that doing nothing is a greater sin.

In the end though, you can only help people if they want to be helped. I do think the US would leave Iraq tomorrow if it was functioning. But fueled by Sectarian clashes and a few ego driven politicians grasping for as much control as possible in the vacuum there, its not going to happen soon. And in the mean time, the tribal culture ensures that revenge, avenge and a bit more revenge continues in an ever increasing spiral of madness.

I believe in peace. I just also believe there is an awful lot of self-serving evil out there and that someone has to do the dirty work to make it a better place for all. Just because you don't have the stomach for it, don't criticise those that do.

[mike777]

"Europe had two world wars on its soil and said that enough was enough - we have to get along. What has to happen for the rest of the world to learn this"


"believe in peace. I just also believe there is an awful lot of self-serving evil out there" Wow great post...you can make a whole blog out of this one line, thanks.

Let's not forget the genocide that happened in Europe last decade, not 70 years ago in WWII. Just ten years ago and they did almost nothing to stop it month after month, year after year. Mass graves, mass murder concentration camps and that was just in the last decade. I hope that is not the lesson you are talking about. At least you guys had the sense to stay out of the civil war or most of it even if it meant 102,000 killed, 1,8 million displaced and 20,000 raped. At least they do not hate you. I think there are some wars going in Eastern Europe now but maybe that does not count? Spain is still having a civil war but there seems to be a truce now does that count? Basque http://www.flashpoints.info/countries-conf...e_briefing.html

Greece and Turkey (both europe) I think are at war but at least have a truce over Cyprus.

Just give Peace a chance. I agree we need a more balanced approach in Bosnia and in Eastern Europe, just because Moscow(Europe) is being bombed is no excuse for more violence and less balance. At worst we just have more Bosnian Wars.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Bosnian_War


btw as a side note for those nonamericans who may not be aware. The USA had a Civil War in the 1860's. From a small population base 662,000 were killed at least.
The Southern states voted, I repeat, voted to leave the Union. This means that most of the voting public in the South voted for leaving the Union voluntarily. The North, Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) said no your votes do not count and we disregard the wishes of the Majority of the voters in the South and went to War. The North being richer and bigger won the war. After the war the occupation of the South by the North was called the "Reconstruction Period" and many of the cultural values and morals of the North were forced on the South.
Does any of this ring a bell in 2006?

[luke warm]

mike makes my all star team

[pbleighton]

"The Southern states voted, I repeat, voted to leave the Union. This means that most of the voting public in the South voted for leaving the Union voluntarily."

Make that "most of the white voting public".

Oh, never mind.

Peter

[pbleighton]

"are you basing your assertion strictly on america's borders, and those people conquered during their establishment? what makes america an empire, in your opinion?"

Well, the Native American history is in response to your assertion that
"some of the very things we are criticized for came about because of the imperialistic bents of countries such as england and france... they both have empires in their histories... we don't"
Manifest destiny? 50 million to 100 million Native Americans when the Europeans arrived, and by the end of the 19th century less than 2 million, mostly living on reservations? How is this not traditional imperialism?

As to the imperialism by proxy which has been our preferred methodology outside our borders - we are imperialistic (an adjective, not a noun - I didn't say we were an empire) as long as we continue to overthrow governments of foreign countries we don't like, and prop up corrupt, unpopular dictatorships (as we are still doing in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, to name just two). As I said in an earlier post:

"We are finding out in Iraq that is very, very difficult to do traditional imperialism - which is much tougher when the natives have Uzis and explosives instead of bows and arrows - we learned this in Vietnam (and the Russians learned it in Afghanistan, the French were expelled from Algeria, etc.), but we seem to need a refresher course in reality."

We are not "the same thing" as the Roman Empire - so what? The Roman Empire couldn't exist today - modern technology makes it impossible. We (sometimes) seem to try to come as close as possible - naive geopolitical puppetmaster nonsense which always seems to blow up in our faces - see the installation of the Shah of Iran in the 50's, the arming and training by the CIA of Al Queda and the support of the Taliban in the 80's, etc. It goes in cycles - prior to Bush 2, we had actually been calming down. Now, however...

Maybe the Iraq fiasco will bring us to our senses, at least for another 20 years.

Peter

[pbleighton]

"I was also thinking that this thread made me feel kind of sad. I felt like there were things I wanted to say, but that no matter how carefully I worded my post people wouldn't think about what I meant, but would attack it, until I was no longer saying what I meant but was simply entrenched in a position. It's nice when discussions are discussions and not debates."

Too bad you feel that way. I suggest (in good faith) that you, and others who are offended by vigorous political debate, stop reading this post. Don't EVER read unmoderated internet newsgroups on politics - they make this thread look like Sunday school.

Speaking for myself, I am enjoying this thread. My feelings haven't been hurt at all, and I haven't meant to hurt anyone else's feelings. But, stuff happens

Peter

[luke warm]

i looked up 'imperialist' and found

The original meaning of imperialist was "an adherent of an emperor".

america has no emperor and is not an empire... i don't believe that the use of military force, in and of itself, is grounds for labeling the u.s. as imperialistic... doing so is simply subjective... subjectivism is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does carry with it preconceptual connotations, and it can call into question ones motives... even though it isn't always possible to be objective, it should be possible to make the attempt...

it somehow seems ingenious to say, "we are imperialistic (an adjective, not a noun - I didn't say we were an empire)" while ignoring the fact that this adjective is commonly used when people refer to the 'american empire'... so using the adjective at least implies the noun... and since 'empires' can be viewed historically, it's easy to see that america does not fall into that category

while "imperialism by proxy" has a nice ring to it, there is an inherent contradiction in the terms... since iraq is in the news, use it as an example... america isn't seeking to make iraq the 51st state, we don't want them paying homage to us, or taxes, or anything else... we want a free iraq...

who is it exactly who doesn't want freedom in iraq? is it the majority of its citizens? iow, does this majority long for the old days under saddam, prior to the imperialistic invasion by the usa? or do the majority of iraqis want a free, democratic country?

does america gain with a democratic society in the middle east? absolutely... as a matter of fact, the world gains... the more democracies that exist, the more freedom that exists, the safer and saner the world becomes... in such a world, all profit...

time after time we see and hear evidence that suggests that the vast majority of the people in iraq want self-rule.. they do not want a dictator, they want a democratic government... who stands to lose by such an arrangement? the terrorists who are pulling out all the stops to keep the people under their control (yes terrorists... i refuse to use the pc word 'insurgents')... so a minority (the martial terrorists) seek to keep the majority enslaved, a majority that longs for freedom

imperialists aren't known for their penchant for freedom.. the roman empire wasn't about importing freedom... neither were the spanish, the english, or the french empires...

[Rain]

pbleighton, on Apr 1 2006, 09:10 PM, said:

"I was also thinking that this thread made me feel kind of sad. I felt like there were things I wanted to say, but that no matter how carefully I worded my post people wouldn't think about what I meant, but would attack it, until I was no longer saying what I meant but was simply entrenched in a position. It's nice when discussions are discussions and not debates."

Too bad you feel that way. I suggest (in good faith) that you, and others who are offended by vigorous political debate, stop reading this post. Don't EVER read unmoderated internet newsgroups on politics - they make this thread look like Sunday school.

Speaking for myself, I am enjoying this thread. My feelings haven't been hurt at all, and I haven't meant to hurt anyone else's feelings. But, stuff happens

Peter

I believe someone like me remains calm most of the time, not easily roused to anger, because I have no deep belief in anything. Often when I see someone getting angry about a cause they believe is just (not applicable to random illogical outbursts aimed at hurting others), I actually feel envy and admiration.

To stand up for what you believe is right, even if you're currently only doing so in this 2D internet world. That's admirable, even if the beliefs held are all a mess; the key is that you believed in something so passionately that you bothered to speak.

[the saint]

I think what I was trying to say was that every nation has done things in the past that it can't be proud of, but the people involved have to try to put it behind them and learn from it. We can't go bearing grudges from 100, 200 years ago. The world is a different place now.

While we all want peace here, I think people recognise that some are not able to defend themselves, and it is incumbent on the more powerful nations to resolve these issues, and then those who do not intervene must not criticise someone else for trying to help.

The one heartening thing here is that irrespective of individual beliefs, races, religions, on this board everyone is thinking towards the same goal. BridgeBase Forum users for World Peace. I think it might work!

[csdenmark]

jikl, on Apr 2 2006, 01:13 AM, said:

This thread should probably be shut down as it could get very vicious. There are things I want to say, but my manners preclude me from doing so. I am sure this is so for many others. Let's leave this alone.

Sean

Certainly not. To me this kind of debate reflects why politic is so difficult. What we have learned from the Mohammed riots lately is that exchange of views are what we really need. Bid-sequences of bridge are mostly just empty statements. Those threads you will be blessed by me advocating to close.

Even the debate here turns from one topic to another one we learn much more about cultural differences in the world here than anywhere else in Forum. I am happy to see that some of the bridge players are more than just puppets. It is also very interesting to me to learn a bit about those americans who are backing USA. Those americans I normally have conversations with tends very much to agree with me and that I learn very little from.

You see I very much agree with Peter but it is statements from Jimmy which are of most interest to me.

[the saint]

sceptic, on Apr 2 2006, 08:10 AM, said:

my theory is that like all civilisations, this one will flounder and fail like all before it, when the winners have come to power (USA, China or who ever comes next), what will happen is greed, decadence, corruption, apathy, economic and social enslavery will rule (signs of this I believe are already showing) and when that happens all will be lost, until the next idealistic civilisation comes to be, (unfortunately when all starts to go down the pan big time, the nuclear weapons we have will be used as no one has anything to lose anymore and mankind has a very good self destruct button (and I dont mean the one at George Bushes finger tip)

One point everyone seems to miss about the British, US etc example is, that to have wealth you have to have poverty, no one can be rich with out someone else living in poverty, no one can be strong without someone else being weak.

I do not believe that charity helps anyone in the long run, take Africa as an example, we send out Aid, to corroupt governments and the countries that are not corrupt, what do theose people do?, they emigrate to earn money and the ones that do this are the young and fit (are these not the people you really want to remain in their countries to stay and rebuild for a better future??

I honestly think that we all should stop trying to interfere with other peoples lives, unless we are honest and say, we don't really give a ***** about you, but we want to use your oil (or whatever they have to offer) until it runs out and then you are of no further use to us and we will let you go back to the dark ages.

if we get a wonderful model where everyone is equal, everyone has a good standard of living (which they dont have to get off their asses for) that is when this will happen greed, decadence, corruption, apathy, economic and social enslavery

I'm not as pessimistic as you.

I think we are different to the species of 100 years ago. We are slowly gaining a conscience. Hiroshima and Nagasaki told us that for the first time we have the power to anihilate everything on the planet, so we have a responsibility not to.
I think it is too early to say the whole planet shares this view, and I also believe that man will come close a couple more times to killing himself before everyone wakes up.

Although 'the Bomb' woke up the developed world that was engaged in WWII, many parts of the world did not get the same wake up call and I fear they may need to have their own very public disasters before things get better.

I also fear that we will have to go through an ecological holocaust before we understand what we have been doing to ourselves. Man will survive it as we have the ability and technology to do so. But we will be a changed animal. Hopefully for the better. I suspect we will gain the ability to manipulate the Earth's climate within a couple of centuries.

What will have to happen are events of such a global magnitude that affect every living soul, that collectively we will say 'Enough is enough'. The process has started. It will just be a painful one.

[csdenmark]

luke warm, on Apr 2 2006, 06:15 AM, said:

i looked up 'imperialist' and found

The original meaning of imperialist was "an adherent of an emperor".

america has no emperor and is not an empire... i don't believe that the use of military force, in and of itself, is grounds for labeling the u.s. as imperialistic... doing so is simply subjective... subjectivism is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does carry with it preconceptual connotations, and it can call into question ones motives... even though it isn't always possible to be objective, it should be possible to make the attempt...

it somehow seems ingenious to say, "we are imperialistic (an adjective, not a noun - I didn't say we were an empire)" while ignoring the fact that this adjective is commonly used when people refer to the 'american empire'... so using the adjective at least implies the noun... and since 'empires' can be viewed historically, it's easy to see that america does not fall into that category

while "imperialism by proxy" has a nice ring to it, there is an inherent contradiction in the terms... since iraq is in the news, use it as an example... america isn't seeking to make iraq the 51st state, we don't want them paying homage to us, or taxes, or anything else... we want a free iraq...

who is it exactly who doesn't want freedom in iraq? is it the majority of its citizens? iow, does this majority long for the old days under saddam, prior to the imperialistic invasion by the usa? or do the majority of iraqis want a free, democratic country?

does america gain with a democratic society in the middle east? absolutely... as a matter of fact, the world gains... the more democracies that exist, the more freedom that exists, the safer and saner the world becomes... in such a world, all profit...

time after time we see and hear evidence that suggests that the vast majority of the people in iraq want self-rule.. they do not want a dictator, they want a democratic government... who stands to lose by such an arrangement? the terrorists who are pulling out all the stops to keep the people under their control (yes terrorists... i refuse to use the pc word 'insurgents')... so a minority (the martial terrorists) seek to keep the majority enslaved, a majority that longs for freedom

imperialists aren't known for their penchant for freedom.. the roman empire wasn't about importing freedom... neither were the spanish, the english, or the french empires...

I like to see you feel deep solidarity with your country. I feel the same way for Denmark. But unlike you I think it is my responsibility to help friends to avoid problems. Simply to test the wisdom of proposed actions.

If you want to be helpful to America you ought to pledge for US not to go abroad unless:

a manifest will of those people to support

citizens of US to apply to important international treaties like Geneva convention and international war tribunal

There are at least one good example of interference by US. That is supporting Solidarnosc during whole 1980's. A succesful outcome we are greatful of - tumbling down the Berlin Wall. This was not done by military power but wisely done behind the curtains.

US have failed not to support manifest will of the people:

Hungary in 1956
Czekoslovakia in 1968
Iraq in 1991

US has intervened against a manifest will of the people

Chile 1973


I think US ought to be more reluctant to police outside their borders. Please remember the mandate for an american president is 25% of US citizens now, earlier even smaller. Such will in a european context qualify for nothing else than cancellation of the election due to low turnout.

[pbleighton]

"imperialists aren't known for their penchant for freedom.. the roman empire wasn't about importing freedom... neither were the spanish, the english, or the french empires... "

Iran, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua... none of these were about freedom. They were about toppling regimes we didn't like. In the latter two cases, we actually went after democratically elected governments. In the Iran, we toppled a populist (though non-democractic) government because we didn't like its politics, and we wanted an oil-rich nation to dominate. Eisenhower refused to get involved in Vietnam, saying that if an election were held, Ho Chi Minh would get 80% of the vote.

And if you think that the invasion of Iraq was about freedom, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you...

As to what is imperialism, it still exists, but technology has dictated that it has changed. This is also seen in the history of the other major post WW II imperialistic power, the former Soviet Union. I'm sure that they would have liked to extend their borders in the old-fashioned Roman/British way, but they (like us) realized that it wasn't feasible. They became puppetmasters instead.

So we have some recent company.

Peter

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Apr 2 2006, 08:10 AM, said:

Iran, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua... none of these were about freedom.  They were about toppling regimes we didn't like.  In the latter two cases, we actually went after democratically elected governments.  In the Iran, we toppled a populist (though non-democractic) government because we didn't like its politics, and we wanted an oil-rich nation to dominate.  Eisenhower refused to get involved in Vietnam, saying that if an election were held, Ho Chi Minh would get 80% of the vote.

the shah came to power as a result of british/russian involvement during wwII... you, i think, are referring to what happened in 1953 when the prime minister was overthrown (he'd nationalized the oil industry)... the fact is, this 'coup' restored the iranian constitution... in any event, i believe it's simplistic to attach evil motives to the '53 coup without taking into account all that was happening (ussr, the tudeh party, etc) at that time...

vietnam started, for us, around 1950 when truman began sending military aid to france (vietnam was part of their empire - the type of empire i've been discussing)... france lost the north in 1954, but america believed a communist north not to be in its interests... so a gov't was established in the south and a military was trained... this continued thru eisenhower and kennedy, until johnson turned it into full scale war

the us did invest money and influence in the chile election of 1964, and allende was defeated at the polls.. he won a plurarity the next election, though, and was overthrown by pinochet (yes, the sanctions imposed by nixon had some effect here)... this is another case of us involvement based on perceived national interest

nicaragua is no different from the above in that the events of the time have to be factored in... it's easy to look back and say what one would or would not do... it's another thing to take into account the very real threat of coummunist expansion into this hemisphere (where one cuba was thought to be one too many)

we might disagree with all of those positions, but they were taken by different us administrations over the course of many years... they weren't the result of any one political philosophy; rather, they were what this government felt to be in its national interest of the time

now it's possible that if you were running the show during any of those moments, your decisions would have been different... it's also possible that your decisions would have resulted in a better, safer, united states... but somehow i doubt it

Quote

And if you think that the invasion of Iraq was about freedom, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you...

over troubled waters? i'll take it.. peter, do you think the national interests of the united states are of no import at all? i suppose one could argue whether or not a certain thing (say, for example, foreign oil) *should* be important to us... i wish it wasn't, personally... but the fact is, we are dependent upon commodities outside our own borders.... so yes, the reason for the invasion of iraq was multi-faceted... overthrow hussein, secure a vital commodity, hope to implant a democratic society in that region

i am not smart enough to know the long-range results of either acting or not... i suspect it's barely possible that you aren't either... but i think it's probably wise to set priorities when speaking of decisions made by a country... what would yours be? would decisions concerning america's national security and/or interests be high on your list? i'd think they should be high on any leader's list, else s/he might not be the one for the job

Quote

As to what is imperialism, it still exists, but technology has dictated that it has changed.

perhaps so, but it helps to be discussing the same thing... for that reason, i object to the use of the term 'imperialistic'

i think the saint's posts have been reasoned and sum up a lot of my beliefs... like him, i'm basically optimistic about our future, tho like wayne i do worry that all civilizations carry within themselves the ability to collapse... i just think that one based on freedom, given the power to maintain that freedom, does not have to fall

[csdenmark]

luke warm, on Apr 2 2006, 05:56 PM, said:

we might disagree with all of those positions, but they were taken by different us administrations over the course of many years... they weren't the result of any one political philosophy; rather, they were what this government felt to be in its national interest of the time

the result of any one political philosophy; rather, they were what this government felt to be in its national interest of the time
Sorry - as this statement looks rubbish to me I need to ask you - what's the difference?