We are NOT thugs. We are NOT an empire. We are NOT a class-based society. We are NOT Nazis. And Bush is NOT Hitler.

You could make the rest of America proud by using your constitutional right to remain silent. God knows anything you said will be used against you.

#1: America is not an empire
First of all, the only claim for this is Iraq. If America was going to become a world wide empire... wouldn't we have picked a place easier than Iraq? I mean, seriously. Sure, it has oil. But picking an unstable South American country would have been closer, easier to depose, and wouldn't entail the entire Middle East turning against us. Also, why haven't we invaded any other countries? Iran is making a lot of noise, but notice we haven't gone in there. North Korea is making trouble... nothing there.

America is an empire

American Empire is a term relating to the political, economic, military and cultural influence of the United States. The concept of an American Empire was first popularized in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War of 1898. This concept has been utilized by writers ranging from classical Marxist theorists of imperialism as a product of capitalism, to modern liberal theorists opposed to what they take to be aggressive U.S. policy.

Globalisation is a variation of the empire/imperialism theme. Rather than invading nations, companies are bought which provides the US with a certain level of economic and political control within a nation.

In addition, US military bases exist in most nations world-wide. In many cases, these bases exist as a direct result of the US inciting conflict within a particular region that necessitated their creation. Examples would be Kuwait after the gulf war, when the US gave Saddam the green light to invade, or Europe after WWII, when US businessmen assisted the rise of Hitler to power. This list is quite extensive and has the same repeating pattern.

Additionally, the US has repeatedly said that we will leave after the job is done. We already have a government in there. Also, we have a great track record of leaving countries after we occupied them. In World War I, we left Germany. In World War II, we left France, Germany, Holland, and Japan (just to name a few!). Do we currently run South Korea?

Each of the nation you mention have permanent bases within their borders, as well as a certain level of political and economic control gained through globalisation.

As for Iraq, a permanent presence is planned:

The supplemental funding bill for the war in Iraq signed by President Bush in early May 2005 provides money for the construction of bases for U.S. forces that are described as "in some very limited cases, permanent facilities." Several recent press reports have suggested the U.S. is planning up to 14 permanent bases in Iraq— a country that is only twice the size of the state of Idaho. Why is the U.S. building permanent bases in Iraq?

Oil is a major national security concern for the US, without it the war machine grinds to a halt and the US is defenceless. The pattern of deployment, with both Bush administrations (Snr & Jnr), has followed classic defence strategies of securing oil assets and pipelines.

Finally, the few territories under our control are for the most part happy. I guess we better let Puerto Rico go. Oh wait, they want to become state #51. Let's let the Virgin Islands go too, eh? Yeah, they're really unhappy.

How about the Lakota?

WASHINGTON — The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States.

"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us,'' long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means said.

A delegation of Lakota leaders has delivered a message to the State Department, and said they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the U.S., some of them more than 150 years old.

The group also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and would continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months.

Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free - provided residents renounce their U.S. citizenship, Mr Means said.

The treaties signed with the U.S. were merely "worthless words on worthless paper," the Lakota freedom activists said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317548,00.html

#2: America is not a white supremacist empire
I know, a big shocker. Sure, we were a few years behind Britain in freeing our slaves. And sure, until the 60s the south oppressed any minority. Well, for the most part, that's all over. Yes, there is racism. But the fact that we have a black man running for the Democrats and a black man and woman being considered for the Republican VP spot is a sign to me that racism is nearly dead. And no, I'm not white. I'm actually second gen Korean.

Racism is alive and kicking. The generation that was involved in US Apartheid is still live and well. These people are anywhere 50-98 years old, the average age in the house and senate is between 55-60 years old.

Have you ever seen a black Republican put forward as a Presidential candidate?

Whether it could be called white supremacy is debatable, but certainly people like Trent Lott, Bob Barr and David Duke with connections to both the CCC and KKK, with Duke himself being a former KKK leader running on a Republican ticket in 1990, demonstrates that this ideology is well embedded into US politics.

#3: America != Nazism
This one really ticks me off. We are not Nazis, and anyone who says that obviously knows it. Why? Because if America was run by a dictator reminiscent of Hitler, you wouldn't be allowed to write such stuff. The fact that one of the strongest anti-America writers uses his actual name is a sign to me that he believes that America really isn't as bad as everyone says. Heck, John McCain (the current wanna-be leader of the GOP, which is apparently the ally of Nazism) wants to let talk radio stations publish what ever they want. I haven't seen any censorship right now. Right now, there are so many anti-Bush columns out there, it's obvious there is no censorship. Have we killed everyone whose skin and religion are different? Maybe two hundred years ago, but I say that the children shouldn't pay for the sins of their fathers.

The claim of Nazism is more correctly expressed as fascism. Let's look at the defining characteristics:

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.

With his use of signing statements, loop holes, questionable legal definitions and use of National security to silence people, Bush has moved to a more authoritarian style of control. When the senate and house were under Republican control, this was near complete.

Bush and the GOP have sought to unify the US through various means. One of the major issues was immigration and multiculturalism, this targeted "ethnic, cultural, racial" aspects as defined above. Further was to drive suspicion and hatred of Islam, which covers the "religious attributes".

Patriotism was used as a motivator to get certain acts passed, the Patriot Act and the Protect America act are just two examples. These acts are examples of statism were there is excessive significant state intervention in personal life through illegal monitoring. Nationalism is consistently used in every speech to assist in an agenda that gives rise to militarism, that is, were there is a belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.

Aspects of totalitarianism are used, the GOP maintain themselves in political power by means of secret police (NSA), propaganda disseminated through mass media, personality cults (Republican pundits), regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism (such as fake studies indicating anti-war material increases attacks, or 'you're either with us or against us' rhetoric), the use of mass surveillance (TIA), and widespread use of terror tactics (Bush's speeches).

Anti-communism can been observed in persistent attacks on file-shares and p2p.

Corporatism can be observed in places such as the US State department where contractors are mainly used. Couple that with corporate lobbying and we can see how this is quite entrenched.

Populism has been provoked by ignoring the will of the people in aspects such as the Iraq war and a wide variety of other decisions.

Collectivism can be seen in the push for bi-partisan decisions and the 'you're either with us, or against us' mentality that promotes the idea that the US can only be defended if everyone stands together to face the common enemy.

Autocracy is clearly visible in Bush's use of signing statements to evade the law.

Opposition to political liberalism are expressed in draconian laws and ever increasing need to monitor citizens and develop biometric databases. Things we didn't require at the height of a mechanised global world war.

As for opposition to economic liberalism, well this is a twist to the entire theme. In modern times, money is power and deregulation, at the expense of economic stability, is a defining characteristic. This allows particular groups to generate wealth rapidly, which in turns builds base support for groups such as the GOP. This is the mechanism by which modern fascist groups seize power in a democratic system.

#4: Bush != Hitler
I know everyone is up in arms about Bush "invading" or "liberating" (whichever you prefer) Iraq. But let's face it. You could easily make the argument that Bush was defending America. The other big thing is the wiretapping thing, which only allows the FBI to wiretap foreign citizens who have no Constitutional rights anyway. I still don't necessarily agree with it, but it isn't as bad as you think. And have we seen the main leftwing leaders rounded up and sent to concentration camps? Is Barack in jail? Is Howard Dean working in a concentration camp? Has Bill Clinton been murdered? No.

Over a million people are dead.

Does it matter if it was by gas or as 'collatoral damage'?

Either way, there was a total disregard for human life. That puts him on par with Hitler.

Over a million people are dead.

Does it matter if it was by gas or as 'collatoral damage'?

Either way, there was a total disregard for human life. That puts him on par with Hitler.

Poppycock. The Left continues to invent numbers and remove all context from them. Blather.

Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline

The Lancet survey was criticised by some experts and by George Bush and British officials. In private, however, the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser Sir Roy Anderson described it as 'close to best practice'.

The April Atlantic has an article discussing various Iraqi death figures. It has been known for a while now that the Lancet figures are erroneous. WHO's current figures, based on body counts put the correct figure in the 150,000 range. (Which is still huge, and a tragic loss of life, don't get me wrong.) The Lancet figures, on the other hand, are based on cluster samples which is a less reliable method. Since obtaining correct figures during wartime is historically difficult and fraught with errors, no doubt the Lancet study was the best that could be done at that time.

I can't include a link because current issues are available online for subscribers only. The article also discusses the reasons the first figure we hear, whether later shown to be false or not, is usually the one that remains in our consciousness in a variety of different contexts, not just wartime body counts. The April issue is worth getting despite the pic of Brittany Spears on the cover (which irritated me to no end).

Seriously Andrew, the wiser course would have been for you to keep it zipped.

Hitler wasn't a capitalist? He was just working the Jews to death for the exercise?

Shame on you.

Just because the government takes over businesses does not make it communist. Fire companies used to be private concerns. Is the United States communistic because the firefighters get city paychecks?

Hitler wasn't a capitalist? What nonsense. Companies thrived under Hitler and loved cheap and slave labor and couldn't get enough of it. One thing Hitler failed to was to bring women into the workforce as the Americans and Russians did which left Germany with a perpetual labor shortage.

So do many other countries.

Tell me another country with bases around the world.

and you must have missed the 109th congress huh.. well they were republicains just like the 108th

and your argument was that hilter was economically a liberal.. so bush isnt.. that's reaching pretty deep as a come back.

a gree we aret hitler and we arent nazi, to say so demeens hitler and WWII. But we are agressive, we do tell nations what to do and who to appoint, we threatne smal african nations with lose of aid if they don't vote our way in the UN. I am sorry BUT WE DO POKE THE RATTLE SNAKE.
explain iran
explain guatamla
and the many other countries we have overthrown simply because they ddnt do the things we wanted. heck bush even tried to start a civil war in palistine.
WE have allied ourselves with terorist arround the world, fromt eh contras, the mudajin and the mek.. just cause we are fighting in public in iraq, doesn't mean we don't do a lot of BS fighting in private.. which is why I and our intellignce agencies agreee.
WE BROUGHT 9/11 DOWN ON OUR SELVES.
The opressed people striking back.

Tell me another country with bases around the world.

France.

Not only was Hitler a capitalist, Bush's granddaddy helped him. So be careful flinging around zany claims, they might come back to bite you.

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power. (Manchester Guardian Sept. 25, 2004)

Over a million people are dead.

Does it matter if it was by gas or as 'collatoral damage'?

Either way, there was a total disregard for human life. That puts him on par with Hitler.

Clinton killed over a million Iraqi's before Bush came into office. Over half of those Clinton killed were children under the age of 5. This was not collateral damage, infighting, or volunteers fighting for something - they were innocent civilians.

Where is the outcry over Clinton?

There is no single party at fault here. It is all of us.

and how many bases in how many countries does france have compared to US

There is no single party at fault here. It is all of us.

My thoughts as well Megan. We need to start paying attention to who is getting into office instead of who's going to be the next American Idol.

America is an empire

Good comeback there... I see how you did that.

There is no single party at fault here. It is all of us.

I agree, Megan. So it's time to change.

Let me be clear, Obama is going to affect change slower than I would like, but at least it will be change for the good. It may not come fast enough or as fully as I think we need it to come, but come it will. With Clinton, you can never be sure. She was for the war, then she was against the war, she is for NAFTA, she is against NAFTA. With McCain, unfortunately, you can be quite sure.

If they were the three monkeys, Obama would be Do No Evil, Clinton would be Depends on What Is Your Definition of 'Evil' and McCain is Newly Repackaged, Same Old Evil.

America has bases in other countries oftentimes because we have been called there, or because we are the only nation in the world with the resources and good will to continue to protect the populace and keep the peace.

I'm amazed at how our maintenance of peace-keeping bases has been transformed into "EMPIRE" by the anti-American hysteria that runs through the fevered swamps of Newsvine.

My parents were in South Korea twice last year, and the people there - strangers on the street - were continually thanking them for America's continued relationship and military presence in South Korea. I've spoken personally with Iraqis who are very grateful for the American liberation. These Iraqis are a lot more grateful and knowledgeable about our military men and women than a lot of people on Newsvine, that's for sure.

One other note:

Hitler = National Socialist

Hiter = criminal towards humanity

There is no single party at fault here. It is all of us.
I agree, Megan. So it's time to change.

Unfortunately, I see no guarantees that Obama will 'do no evil'. No more so than with any other candidate. Will he aid Iraq? Or completely abandon them? We have responsibility there. What will he do after he pulls out our troops? Will our military suffer as it did under Bill Clinton? I'm afraid that Obama is more akin to Bill Clinton then any other President of my lifetime...

surely, not Clinton. Maybe Kennedy. Except more wary about stupid wars (let's hope.)

Alas, I'm not old enough for Kennedy.

Clinton tried to be Kennedy. Alas, feet of clay.

Another better example might be Teddy Roosevelt. Which I'm thinking Kennedy was striving to emulate but didn't quite have the chance.

Tom, quit it with the rhetorical trickery. Hitler was a socialist in the same sense that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a republic, or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy.

And you know it.

There are far more Deaths after America invaded Iraq than while Saddam baby-sit this volatile region. Does that make Bush worse than Saddam? Perhaps we should have left well enough alone......

Rixar,

Sadly, that is untrue. There were over a million civillian deaths due to sanctions upheld by Clinton before Bush ever gained the Presidency. More Iraqi's have been killed by starvation and related diseases than by this war.

The sanctions were supposed to inspire the people to dethrone Hussein. They only made him stronger.

What we have seend the most of on the news is pick and choose. We were not leaving them alone for over a decade before the war, we were just targeting mostly children under the age of 5 and the most helpless of the cilvillian population.

There is so much biased commentary coming from the news media. I am sure there is more to base decisions on than what I heard or remember. I do believe in Justice!

Yes. The sanctions and the related deaths got very little coverage. Many people don't even realize what Clinton and other past Pres. were up to or responsible for.

Many people don't even realize what Clinton and other past Pres. were up to or responsible for.

Didn't Clinton inherit the situation from Bush Sr.? How can we put all the blame on Clinton?

Because that's the new standard, don't you know. We blame Clinton, saying it was his fault, but we don't blame anyone before him, because that's just going back too far (even though you're right).

I'd gander that from about 1950 on up, every president has passed on a problem or 10... almost purposefully. I think that's when politics took on it's modern game face.

I'd gander that from about 1950 on up, every president has passed on a problem or 10... almost purposefully. I think that's when politics took on it's modern game face.

That's not very neighborly, is it? ;)

I hope I find time to read more of the comments on this thread. Looks like an interesting discussion.

That's not very neighborly, is it? ;)

truth is truth... I'm a Republican, but I know my party has screwed up in areas and I'm not afraid to admit it. I usually don't but then I'm not usually called to point it out.

I thought I covered the past Pres. by saying "and presidents before him". I certainly don't blame Clinton for everything. But he is certainly responsible for keeping the Iraqi sanctions in place for his entire presidency, even when he could see it was not working. And don't even bother defending him with the oil for food fiasco. It was totally ineffective and even after being in place children and the elderly were still the main victims of over a million deaths through starvation. Bush Sr. put them in place, and he bombed the water supplies in the Gulf War - which I've mentioned elsewhere on this thread - and Reagan has responsiblity as well. But Bush Sr. tried the sanctions along with the UN for 2 years before he was gone. Clinton upheld them for 8 years, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's. It was 6 years into his presidency that the studies by UNICEF were done. And despite the data, and the fact that the sanctions were obviously not working, and despite other UN countries backing out and begging the US to stop, he kept it up. So I give him credit for the majority of that one, which is why I named him.

Just so you know, George, you're 'new standard' theory doesn't apply to everyone who criticises Clinton. Sometimes - and in this case I was referring to a particular situation - the shoe fits.

truth is truth...

Glad to see you're not color-blind. We're all human, aren't we, replete with human failings.

I thought I covered the past Pres. by saying "and presidents before him".

So you did, Megan. Clinton certainly bears *some* responsibility. Still, who knows what the various pressures on him were at the time? I'm not saying that it absolves him of guilt, just trying to be sympathetic to a person I admire.

Something I do find ironic is that all the capitalistic hating people here on Newsvine are actually making money for MSNBC with their ads. And when they comment here, they make money for... me! So honestly... bring it on!

*kaching*

There you are, another 0.02 cents.

No, we aren't any of those things... and now you've vigorously defended AMerica against that 0.0001% of the population which really thought any of those things.

(Well ok, a bunch think we are an Empire.)

Being anti-capitalist does not mean being anti-money making.

For me, it means that I prefer the people who create the wealth (true value) get the money (symbol of value). So I'm happy that you get money from my comments.

I am not however, happy about MSNBC getting money, simply by virtue of their ownership of "capital" based on arbitrary rules.

it's the gap between the wealthy and the soon to be middle class/poor that I don't like. Nothing against a guy making a profit, but I feel like I'm being raped at the gas pump and the food store, If my pay reflected the cost of living, no problem.

The way that most Americans who give it the slightest thought feel but then you ask them if they want the tax cuts to expire for the wealthy and they say no. Go figure. Until average American get a grip on this whole income redistribution scam perpetuated by the wealthy and their bought and paid for politicians in this country the misery index is going to continue to rise.

Agreed. The problem, and it's kind of weird to call it a problem really, is that most Americans believe that they will be rich one day, never realizing that if everyone's rich, you'll have to be super-rich to have the effects we now consider rich. Inflation will keep up with all.

There really is a point to having a middle class and helping to protect that middle class which many Americans just don't seem to understand.

The problem, and it's kind of weird to call it a problem really, is that most Americans believe that they will be rich one day

I disagree. I believe most American's want their own version of the "American Dream". Whether it be wealth, or stability, or even make it a better place than what they came into. I don't strive to be rich. I strive to be the best provider and example for my kids, be knowledgeable in my job, be the best husband I can be, and make the best beer possible. I have a dream and who knows with a lot of effort it'll come true but I doubt it'll make me a rich person. Most of my family and friends don't strive to be 'rich' in that sense of the word but strive to be rich in life and relationships.

Well then you'd be the exception to the rule, I would guess, but if you're not, then why would we spend our time protecting interests that are not in our best interests?

I'm not saying there aren't people who have a more well-rounded view of life, I'm just saying that a majority have dreams of becoming rich. Not that they are even actively pursuing those dreams, because for the most part, they are not, but that in most cases it will somehow just happen. And no, they don't really think about what all this means.

The only other possibility is that we're just stupid. Mine, at least, gives me a little hope.

why would we spend our time protecting interests that are not in our best interests?

Are you talking personal interests or political interests?

Well there's Eric (one swallow does not a summer make) and there's a lot more, like me I guess, who don't like the form of capitalism practised by the US. But none of them say the things you're accusing them of, so your article is effectively a big provocative straw man.

I don't understand this.

You're proud of the fact that your country hasn't rounded up all the people who disagree with the administration. That's not exactly raising the bar especially high.

Actually, I wrote this. And I believe it is worthy of a response.

And I guess I responded. Now I'm untracking it, too. Really I just dropped in to encourage you to do better, since I have enjoyed a number of your posts and I was disappointed with this one.

You and I should talk at length some time, Eric. I'd be interested to learn more, but I think it's going to take coffee, or something similar, in large quantity. Actually I wasn't really being fair in my statement above, either - since my ideal world would not have property as it is currently understood, nor money. But I didn't feel like using this thread to try to explain the difference between that and being "anticapitalistic" whatever that word means.

Every now and then someone posts an article like "Intelligent Design is stupid nyer nyeeerrr" (I agree it's stupid but that's not the point). Or "All Democrats are Pussys", or whatever. Frankly it's annoying, because it's no attempt at discussion it's cheap provocation.

Yeah, that Ben Stein is a great biologist, ain't he? I encourage you to read The Origin of Species and talk to a few molecular geneticists, physicists, and geologists. I think you will find that they find Mr. Stein's evidence entirely unconvincing. But what do they know? They never had a bit part in Matthew Broderick movie!

your example on vine bucks isnt very good as capitalism isnt about making money. People make money in socialist and even communistic societies.
But anyways I am not against capitalism either and I don't think eric is either.
I am against the failed idea that Laissez-faire, no regulation capitalism is dangerous.
It is how we get enron, the sub prime mess. It allows people to be preyed upon. Dangerous and unsafe things to be sold.
I'm not against capitalism just the extreme form of "buyer beware' laissez faire.
Another huge problem we have today is subsidized corps and bought congressmen.
It's a bit hard for me as a tax paying store owner to compete against walamart when the town I live in rolls over and give them huge tax breaks. SHoot I alrady couldn't competet with their massive size and now the town simply gives them an unfair advantage over me. Fair? well in todays america it is.
Gov is needed to make sure people play fair but nto to make sure the game is more fair for some people than others.
These are the forms of capitalism I despise and they have proven through out histroy to be failures.
ALl markets start out laizze faire, they get regulations based on need(many times greed, I will give you that). Look at the net, was totally deregulated for a while. For a long time I could even hack you and you couldn't do nothing as there was no law(except to not attack gov computers) I could send out billiions of spam messages for my biz, as there were no regulations. Now a spammer is going to jail for sending out all those "wanna free ipod " emails..and I thank god we don't live in a laize fairre capitalistic society.

But it puts to rest the idea that America is NOT censoring as much as some would like to say.

The US-born corporate regime does not practice censorship the same way as previous regimes. It has no need to kill people, or even silence them directly. Instead, because it more perfectly controls the markets, it can render marginal any voice opposing it.

The tools of economic manipulation under their control have proved a far more effective mechanism than any previous: war, religion, nationalism.

Actually I wasn't really being fair in my statement above, either - since my ideal world would not have property as it is currently understood, nor money.

So... how do you deal with limited resources in your perfect world?

In my perfect world, people work together because they want to, not because they're forced to.

how do you deal with limited resources in your perfect world?

In a perfect world, limited resources are found by magically pulling them out of your own arse. This impefect world of ours, not having access to magic arses, must find another way.

Dagda, would you agree with me that if someone could find a way to fabricate and mass produce magic arses, they would be fabulously wealthy? Especially if the magic arse could function in an environmentally-friendly way?

Arses have never been environmentally friendly...

too much methane, you see.

I think Dagda should be appointed to a commission to investigate the possibilities. ;-)

oooh oooh! I second the nomination! :)

Hey, Tom , is this what you mean about proper behavior? Thanks for clarifying.

I'd be happy to investigate if the ladies of Newsvine will be so kind as to drop their unmentionables. Purely in the interest of science. I hypothesize one or the other of them must have a magic arse.
Strictly scientific. ;)

George ... Dagda.

Dagda ... George.

Dagda and I may tangle, but just when I think I'm ticked off at him, he makes me laugh ... or think.

one or the other of them must have a magic arse

Talking about me again I see.

Better you than me! :-O

Is it yersilf then, Brenda? Com'eere t' me an' let me feel f'r mesilf.

Stric'ly f'r scientifical purposes, of coorse.

If we really had more leverage, Gas prices wouldn't continue to rise exponentially. If we really had so much leverage in the oil market, our Dollar wouldn't continue to be devalued. I think the oil argument is overdone and losing its credibility, especially among the American people.

Secondly, Hitler tried to devalue the human being using Social Darwinism to play his platform. The Jews did no harm to anyone, yet they were railroaded and persecuted because they were deemed less pure. Terrorists are causing havoc to everyone, not just Americans, all across the globe with hate and destruction to people, they believe, are less pure because they are not Arabic, nor Islamic. I think your association works better in reverse: for the Terrorists and Islamic Jihadists fit more with Hitler and Naziism than America does.

If we really had more leverage, Gas prices wouldn't continue to rise exponentially. If we really had so much leverage in the oil market, our Dollar wouldn't continue to be devalued. I think the oil argument is overdone and losing its credibility, especially among the American people.

The dollar drops and oil rises not from a lack of leverage, but rather a lack of economic and "imperial" responsibility on the United States' behalf. Oil is traded in dollars because it is/was the strongest currency on the planet. As that changes, so will the currency oil is traded in. It's simple economics being played by OPEC and other oil producing nations. Well, hardly simple, but very economical.

I think your association works better in reverse: for the Terrorists and Islamic Jihadists fit more with Hitler and Naziism than America does.

I agree 100% with that statement. They are far closer to Nazi's than America. Minus the functioning state and contained/organized base. Oh yea, and a standing army with which to use to conquer the world. (They rely on nations like the US to over react to overt "threats to our security" and use the needless invasions and bombings in "retaliation" to build their army, they just don't have technology)

Al Qeada is more of an American institution, in the sense we call every terrorist group Al Qeada on the evening news and in talking points because if we had to be specific about terrorism, the "fight for good against evil" would be far to complex to sum up in a thirty minute, or five minute segment on the evening news.

argueing with zero knowlegde of history is enterttaining.
I guess yous guys never heard of the carter docturne?
or perhaps you wonder why iran nationalised their oil?? think they loved the international contracts imposed on them by the brits ?
why do you think venezeula nationalized their oil and recently won a legal battle against exxon stating that venz gave them just compensation for their own oil?
WE go into countries, we install puppet gov, we make the contracts and we leave.
the shah of iran was one of our puppets.. did we control iran.. no, did we get the contracts we wanted for iranian oil.. yes.. well until they kicked us out again.

The carter docturne states that we will do everything in our power to ensure the free flow of oil fromt eh middle east.
we also have treaies with saudia arbaian to protect the monarchy from enemis foreign and domestic, to ensure the free flow of oil from sa to our companies. That's why we never compalin they are a monarchy and no real worry about the fact most of the hijackers came from there and osama as well. but no need to look in SA right?
please
believe it was churchhill who stated no nation would be a super power without controlling the flow fromt he middle east.
shoot that's one of the reasons we wanted that huge trans aphghan oil pipeline so that we could influence asia more.

Just Google "rex 84" and you will learn what the future is in the US.

You have no idea what your talking about

Won't you share your esoteric knowledge that would make Mr. Apps ( ;-) ) "crap his pants"?

I think you should only write about what you know about.

ROTFLMAO. And this from a guy who posts YouTube video shorts about the evils of the Council On Foreign Relations as if they're some kind of learned study. Too funny.

I think you should only write about what you know about. technology

I'm sure that if you told him if he's wrong about something, he'd be eager to learn (opinions aside)... so if he's so wrong about somethin', let's hear it :D

If you only knew what was going on behind the scenes in America you would crap your pants

HA! I don't wear pants...

@CurtisLow OK I've got my diapers on. Please proceed, I'm ready to "hear the truth".

It always amazes me how right wing apologists can ignore history, ideology, and that can only be done by class ideologies, class apologists, class imperialists, nationalists, who say "we"

Yeah... its sort of like those people who balk and strut around, with wobbly chicken heads, pecking at dirt, pointing a finger only to say "not I, not I... not I"

WE, has a place. Generally its a sign of someone who comes together in a group to accomplish something. WE, doesn't center its thoughts only in itself. WE, shares blame... and what does "I" do? point a lonely finger taking no responsibility for anything...

Further I'm amazed at how the leftists sit around talking about all the @!$%# gone wrong... offer up blame like hot cakes with a side of syrup on Sunday... ask them how to fix it, and the response is "I didn't do it, it was the Right." If only they listened... the question isn't who did it, it's how to fix it. But, even so, the solution for them is simpler - have your cake and eat it too.

Come one, come all... invest your money and time into one another to create a self leveling system that would ensure all can succeed based upon the lowest common denominator. Sick? Unemployed? jut plain @!$%#ing lazy? It's okay... the government shall fix it for you, and you'll keep your rights and liberties, except now we'll tell you when it is and is not okay to practice them and we'll charge you for it too, just so long as you know the Right, Conservative, Republican, not Left groups of people eat babies left and right....

For the most part Eric, I respect what you say but hardly accept it as valid. When you stop and realize that NO ideology is perfect and that the Left has an equal amount of functional retards running around maybe people would listen. For now... you're trying to tell people on the INSIDE how it works.

While you're at it, write a letter to Nintendo explaining that they've no clue about video games, I'm sure they'll respond to you with open ears and minds....

I hear you pain. I do not relish in being right, especially if it means we will all be dead

Well Eric, you assume that you are in fact correct. I'm sure there is an extent of truth in your words, but ideologies are like guns: by themselves they're harmless and ineffective. It's the people that espouse the ideas and the contexts in which they take them that make them dangerous and deadly.

I can think of several very dangerous Leftist ideas that if put into action would greatly diminish America.

That to me suggests you have made no time to read my articles, seeds, and social theory, or you would have come up with specific or generic arguments against the social theory.

Likewise. Although can it really be assumed that everyone who challenges the ideas you present in a thread not of your own would go and read your articles. I've read some of them, and generally I do not comment. It's hard to get a word in when someone has said the same thing i was going to or there are a lot of people who simply hear what they want and attack that. I notice that you don't ask what my ideologies truly are, but understand that my words make that fairly transparent. Nonetheless, it seems an assumption has been made with regards to my position. Perhaps you should read and filter through my articles and comments across other boards.

I am not eating "babies" from the right, I am asking you to compare ideologies, histories from a universal measurement, universal parameter, social standards, that are not "the lowest common denominator", but in fact are higher than the class standards, which reach below the social , moral center, the exploitive, unpaid labor, immoral standard, class standard which you defend.

Eric, things are what they are. Rid the world of one form of 'ism' and it pops up in another form. People have this need to stand out and one of the downfalls of America is this whole 'melting pot' conundrum that exists today. People get mad because their cultures aren't as important to one as they are another. The fact is, in America no culture is more important than the American Culture - that's how we're set up and from my point of view, many left leaning ideologies want to make everyone feel important - but with that comes rivalry, segregation, and classism.

As an example, if you recall when Barak Obama started the campaign trail... the sentiment was, "Is he Black enough?"... I can tell you, it wasn't the Republicans or those on the right that were asking this question. Then you have a majority of the left worrying over block votes, the votes from various minority communities, such as the Latinos. They focus intently on being so inclusive that their focus actually segregates them. I see no reason to have a hyphenated society such as we have and bringing focus on special interests and racial blocks, is stupid.

I can't compare things from the right to the left without delving into the 'lowest common denominator' because the left constantly uses that metric. I don't pick the field on which to play...

...and... just call me Shawn, no need to be so formal as to use my last name.

Andrew, I thinc you will find it more appropriate if you kould spell South Corea properly, m'cay?

And, you're right, our okkupation of nations has provided them with enormous liberties to pursue their own demokratic interests.

Wow, it's really tough to thinc klearly enough to spell in this new way! My respekt for Erik just went up even higher!

Andrew @8.2:

An how many territories of those do we currently control? Nada.

You keep repeating this assertion as though the world were some sort of Risk board where countries are either under our control or not. Real empires were never so simple, not even in the classical days of the British Empire. Our economic and military influence outside our borders defines our empire, just as it has always defined empires throughout history, and these are manifest in our corporate offices and military bases around the world. And it is has not been a bloodless process, either. We have fought wars in places like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq to defend our empire and maintain our influence, where our own national security was not at risk.

Cultural empire = America. That's what I'm referring to anytime I say America is an empire. And if the neoconservatives aren't the closest thing to fascism the free world has seen since, well fascism itself, I'll eat my own head.

Steve,

fortunately there are not a lot of neocons, but there are the far left, or socialists that equal in number. They just have a more attractive package:

"free warm blankets for all", followed by the tiny print clause:

"blankets are pre-shrunk on size fits all. Item may not be returned, has no monetary value, may cause anal leakage, and is not adjustable. People who have need of a second blanket due to natural variance in personal needs are out of luck. Subject to change without notice.

By accepting this blanket you agree to the following:

Blankets property of the government and in the event of an emergency we reserve the right to redistribute blankets in smaller sizes in limited number. "Emergency" status is set at our discretion.

DANGER: Keep away from middle class.

Known side effects are: painful taxation.

If taken anally, do not induce vomiting. "

Shawn,

Balderdash! This is just plain stupid. You find it easy to blame the lefty extremists, but conveniently ignore the problems already caused by the righty etxremists. Hypocrisy anyone?

I find it easy to blame all of them. So now what?

Get out and run for office, or find someone you can back and vote for them! Do something to try to make things better.

BTW, my comment in 9.3 was aimed at Shawn.

The American cultural imperialism I hate is the exportation of trendy Leftist principles. This occurs in our American universities when we receive international students here - who are coming because they appreciate American ingenuity, freedom, and opportunity - and then they get brainwashed to hate our country and told how rotten our history is, and what oppressors we are by bitter old hippies. And while they are visiting here, they see the rottenness and shallowness of our popular culture, the breakdown of our families, and our experimentation with destructive alternative lifestyles and hatred of traditionalism of all kinds.

Then there is the cultural imperialism that comes via nongovernmental social agencies, often funded and directed by Leftist causes or the UN. What's even worse is our exportation of Hollywood values, pornography, and anti-family measures straight into other countries, often in a forcible way, where foreign aid is attached to their acceptance of these ideas.

See, I can criticize America too!

Too bad it's another ridiculous criticism. Where do you get this BS, Tom? Do you actually believe that countries which actually have certain socialist policies get those ideas from the US?

Foreign students who come to the US come from many different nations, and most of those nations already have fairly socialistic or liberal policies, most of them more liberal than anything any of our professors may profess.

They have National Health Insurance; they recognize same-sex unions; they believe that economic policy must be regulated.

Your post, Tom, is so off base, I'm surprised you can say any of this crap with a straight face.

Orwell,

Tell me, have you been on a college campus recently? A huge number of our international students are coming from the Middle East, Asia, and Africa ... in other words, traditional cultures. (They aren't really into same-sex unions like the "enlightened" West is.) Many of them are coming here because they see America as a beacon of hope.

But, when they get here, they are told what an evil empire America is.

They could save themselves the trip and just sit at home and read some of your notes.

Many jihadists have become radicalized during their time here in the USA, on campus, or reading drivel like Noam Chomsky.

Tom,

Have you? Of course there are plenty of students coming from Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. But if you were actually on a campus, you would see that these students meet many different people and most of them end up studying economics, engineering and the hard sciences. They get very little in the way of any political education, unless you argue that they get it through osmosis.

I've never said America is an evil empire. If you wish to quote me, then quote me and don't make up s**t because you have no f***ing argument. You want to be a S**t, that's fine. But don't lie about what I've said.

You fine pillar of virtue, you.

Balderdash! This is just plain stupid. You find it easy to blame the lefty extremists, but conveniently ignore the problems already caused by the righty etxremists. Hypocris

Simply becuase I didn't point our the extreme right in this single instance is not a good indicator that I forget or forgive them. To assume that is, well.... stupid on your part.

In summary you've said:

It's not fair that I don't also single out the Right Extremist groups, who by existence make the extreme Left justified - or - you're doing the same thing that you allege I'm doing and overlook the left extreme in the pointing out the right.

BTW, my comment in 9.3 was aimed at Shawn.

I think starting 9.3 with "Shawn," tipped most of us off to that. But thanks...

Your post, Tom, is so off base.....

They get very little in the way of any political education, unless you argue that they get it through osmosis.

Okay...

Noam Chomsky. Teaches at MIT, constantly talks and preaches about Libertarian Socialism / Arnachy... what does he teach at MIT - not political science. What are the majority of students at MIT? foreign. Would you assert that Noam Chomsky is a 'nobody'? think carefully....

you lose.

Well done, Shawn.

I used Noam Chomsky as an example, but I could have mentioned many others.

Orwell, I have been on campus a good bit, thanks for asking. Even students of "hard sciences" are subjected to all kinds of leftist political thought on American campuses. Read "The Professors" by David Horowitz, or "Tenured Radicals," or "Imposters in the Temple," or "The Enemy Within" by Dinesh D'Souza. If you're brave, read "Milestones" by Sayyid Qutb to see our culture (albeit, 50 years ago) from the point of view of one of the godfathers of modern jihadism.

At any rate, I don't want to go off on this tangent much further. I think, Orwell, you just enjoy being contrary ... I don't know that we're going anywhere. Shawn is someone who can advance a logical argument ... and he can kick my butt in a debate at times. But, Orwell, you seem to just enjoy a figh for the sake of fightingt. OK ... I get it.

excuse my brash insult, but Dinesh D'Souza is an utter moron. Watch him debate Christopher Hitchens to truly see him backed into a corner.

As is David Horowitz.

And again with the insults. Tom, what you consider a logical argument is to set up a straw man and then knock it down. Just like Horowitz and D'Souza. And then you lie. And that to you makes for honest debate?

Shawn,

You do forgive and forget them. You do it throughout this entire thread. Your statements are hyperbole when it comes to the Left: All leftists want to do is get a bigger mirror, while only some on the right do that, to paraphrase. Do you not see a double standard there?

And where did I say Chomsky was "nobody?" But you're right; he doesn't teach political science. He teaches linguistics.

Tons of foreign linguistics students at MIT, I sure.

Dinesh D'Souza and David Horowitz are both great Americans, unlike some people commenting here in this thread. D'Souza kicked Hitchens' butt in the debates, which I've seen. His books are reasonable and not harsh, but very insightful. Horowitz is more abrasive, but he does his homework, he has the facts, and he tells it like it is.

Okay, so that's wrong. D'Souza makes stuff up so he can knock it down. When people point out he makes stuff up, he cries. Remember also, D'Souza's recent rant that if we were only more like the religiously intolerant who attacked us on 9/11 they wouldn't have attacked us. This, btw, seems to be the belief of a great many of the religious right leaders. If only we were more fundamentalist, we wouldn't have been attacked.

Well documented anywhere on the web you want to look. I doubt you'll look or change your mind, but I have hope in my heart.

Horowitz is just a nutjob. Believing either of these two just goes to show how little some people actually want to know what these so-called opinion leaders really think.

Christopher Hitchens

and you can watch him talk in a circle against... Al Sharpton.

Orwell, good job on misrepresenting and twisting Dinesh D'Souza's words. I would take D'Souza and Horowitz over a whole army of Hitchens clones...and, on some issues, I actually like Hitchens. The main problem Hitchens would have with D'Souza is the faith issue. They actually have many areas of agreement.

Tom,

You really do have comprehension problems, don't you. You do the same exact thing. You blamed liberals for Sayd Qutb creating al qeada, which is what D'Souza does. According to your own reasoning here, Qutb created al qaeda because he came to the US to go to University, saw just how liberal the University was, and went home and decided not only was that not for him, but that he would create an organization to stop this sort of liberalism.

And your answer to Qutb is: we will stop this sort of liberalism for you, but in the meantime we intend to destroy your organization, even though we hold most of the same views.

You will, of course, say that I am distorting what you said, but just go and look at what you've written. It's clear as day that you a Qutb share the same views when it comes to liberalism. The only real difference between the two of you is that he was a Muslim and I have no idea about your religious affiliation but I would suspect that you are a so-called christian.

As for Hitchens: he's just a drunken gasbag.

You do forgive and forget them. You do it throughout this entire thread. Your statements are hyperbole when it comes to the Left: All leftists want to do is get a bigger mirror, while only some on the right do that, to paraphrase. Do you not see a double standard there?

You talk but nothing comes out, man...

Cite my forgiveness and cite my forgetfulness. really, please do. Oh, my anti-left hyperbole proves I forgive and forget the right. Um... absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... but I guess I have to 'prove I hate some of the right' to be 'cool' with you...

I disagree with most of the left / Democrat platform. Not in idea, but in action. Conversely I agree with the Right / Republican for the most part on both idea and action. I guess (and it's just a theory that I have), that my being Republican has something (if only in an abstract way) to do with it.

I believe I did not use the word "All" in much anything I've said concerning the left. I also think that I've said I would even vote for Obama if I liked HOW he'd go about his ideas...

And where did I say Chomsky was "nobody?" But you're right; he doesn't teach political science. He teaches linguistics.

I didn't say that you said Chomsky was a nobody. I asked you if you thought he was becuase of this statement you made:

? Of course there are plenty of students coming from Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. But if you were actually on a campus, you would see that these students meet many different people and most of them end up studying economics, engineering and the hard sciences. They get very little in the way of any political education, unless you argue that they get it through osmosis.

The point was that you're wrong. Students in universities are subjected to political teachings and thoughts by professors even when the professor isn't a political science teacher, as with Chomsky... I was seeing if you were going to say "oh, well Chomsky doesn't count" or make some kind of excuse. You didn't that's good... and it means you're previous assertion is wrong.

how many straws are left for you to pull?

They are everywhere collecting piles of boxes of data
but they don't know how to read it!!
Before 9/11 they threw boxes of serious records about 'immenent attack ' aside

i'm a libertarian, opposed to police state spying on citizens...but alas, its too late, we've been taken over

@headinthegame Who was president while all this data was pouring in about a future 9/11? Who was head of state? Who didn't want to proceed with the help from the afghan rebel leader "Lion of the Desert" who was later killed in a suicide attack from Bin Ladens army - the name escapes me dammit but instead left them to defend themselves? Who was too busy kissing Chinese ass while Bin Laden and group were making threats to the US?

Wow, we're back to blaming Clinton. When Clinton's no longer around, who are you going to blame then?

As for the Who questions: Who was told by Clarke that bin Laden was a major problem? Who was given a briefing stating that bin Laden was determined to attack in the US while he was on vacation? Who ignored said briefing and dismissed the briefer with the words, "Well, you've covered your ass."

Who sat quietly with a deer in the headlights look on his face when the attack came? Who then decided to invade a country which had nothing to do with the attack? Who told us we would get bin Laden dead or alive, yet still hasn't?

I could keep this up all day, but I just don't have the time to devote to pointing out the mistakes that have been made by you-know-who.

CLASS WHORE!

Sorry Eric has said it a bunch and it has such a nice ring to it

I always wondered what school Eric went to that got to vote for Class Whore. It's sounds like a harsh yet perhaps fun thing to do.

In my high school graduating class, there would have been a furious competition for that award, from both sexes.

I've always wondered... What's with the communist addiction to the letter K?

In all honesty the one thing I tend to really dislike about my fellow Americans is our tendency to make sweeping generalizations. It is good, however, to know that there are like minded fellows out there.

Hey, Henry, look at you go. This is the only article I'm going to get the chance to see today, but I'm still granting you a The Cup.

Andrew, if you ever bothered to leave the country - you would see that Americans are, in fact, thugs. Hell, you even feel you have the right to choose what homosexuals can do in their own homes - but if anyone goes near your guns you`ll shoot them dead. You feel that killing a million innocent people is okay, because some criminals killed three thousand Americans. Then you have the nerve to tell that that your occupation is for their own good.

Pick a country that isn't Sweden that hasn't done this.

And uh... there are a lot of false generalizations in there... you may want to revise that to be, I dunno, accurate?

Bane said:

In all honesty the one thing I tend to really dislike about my fellow Americans is our tendency to make sweeping generalizations. It is good, however, to know that there are like minded fellows out there.

Yes, because it was clear by context that he meant "every single person who lives in America."

Shawn Gordon:

Pick a country that isn't Sweden that hasn't done this.

Well that justifies it!

Well, it's pretty obvious that you won't since you seem to believe that things are going swimmingly and that opposition is just by those damn lefty, socialist-communist-facsists who believe what the Constitution actually says is true.

Henry, I'm not against homosexuality (though I believe it's wrong). But you take away our guns, and who will stop this totalitarian government you're afraid of?

Elections.

Henry, I'm not against homosexuality (though I believe it's wrong). But you take away our guns, and who will stop this totalitarian government you're afraid of?

Yeah because some geriatrics with glocks and hunters with rifles are going to protect us from the government. you're kidding right?

Well that justifies it!

I never said it did. I implied that if you're going to bark up our tree, go buy some more dogs and bark up everyone else's tree as well.

Guns won't stop a totalitarian government from taking seed if one was. They'd just shoot you anyways. How about you do some research before you vote for Senators or Representatives. Maybe keep on the political pulse and lobby for the issues that you want taken care of. Send letters to your congressmen, call them on the phone tell them what you want.

Guns won't protect the American people and haven't since the Civil War because guess what, our army has such advanced technology that you'd be splattered to your porch before you could yell "Give me liberty!"

@Andimia You wouldn't just give up would you? What if the Army of this 'totalitarian government' had people who didn't believe in the government either? What about militias? Have you ever heard of the Knob Creek Gun Shoot? There are plenty of other places like this in the US.

Adam Becker:

Yes, because it was clear by context that he meant "every single person who lives in America."

Brilliantly refuted, besides ignoring completely the actual meaning of the term to dally in semantics while ignoring the very plain "Yeah, you're not thugs at all...".

You're meaning, of course, you are. Which in the context of his post would be Americans. Or did I oversimplify while basking in my gun toting, tyrannical debauchery?

I don't comment on here as much as I would like, it's a shame I can't count on my one reply making any use of what I actually said. Maybe next time!

From another thread:

Alright, Eric, fine. You keep talking all big n' mighty about us awful imperial and class nationalists. What exactly is it you do to stop the trend you spend all day crying about? I haven't seen any news reports of you standing in front of Congress (or whatever governmental institution, if you don't live in the US). I don't see a swath of articles about your experiences in Darfur helping those who suffer most from imperialism, no stories from Iraq; hell, no stories from South-Central LA or East St. Louis, about your fight against the injustices done to blacks by the super-wealthy.

I don't see you studying up on the IRS, which is a clear case for the stratification of wealth by an elite class with the help of the people's own government. All I see is blah blah Amerikan blah blah Zionists blah blah Western gah gah injustice...

...

So, in your own words, Why not try to argue on the merits of history and ideology [?] Because that's exactly what it would be, arguing. You like to talk your "esoteric" Marxist code or whatnot using "ideals" and Western logic, but I've done that. I remember that phase, but I learned from it and moved on. You are an intelligent person and therefore can rationalize overextending applications of these theories - that is both the gift and curse of intelligence.

Notice, I am not saying that American capitalism and the unsettling influence of the corporate world on every government isn't a problem. But, you believe you know far more than the real truth. You see complex conspiracies where none exist. You refuse to accept, for example, the power of stupidity and ineptitude, thereby failing to appreciate the intricacies of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the Palestinian refugee problem. So, with all due respect, I see reading and learning as better uses of time than arguing the existence of the Amerikan empire.

Afghanistan doesn't count, because almost everyone will agree that was a justifiable war. Including even those lefties like Hillary.

Why is it noteworthy that a person who voted to invade Iraq would support invading Afghanistan?

lets not forget Hawaii, Cuba (great depression saved them), Panama (at the time of the agreement the year 2000 seemed like it was forever into the future) oh yeah and that attempt on Vietnam and the proxy wars. There are more that I'm forgetting.

Saddam was linked to al-Qaeda, who wants to kill Americans, and had nucular weapons to give them.

Uh, right? That was the argument I got... which has been declared shenanigans many times over.

You forgot China, otherwise excellent list.

We were in Cuba long before JFK. the only reason that Cuba isn't a territory like Puerto Rico is because there was an uprising during the great depression and we just didn't care at the time. We invaded China during the Korean war because of an overzealous army leader. Oh and the US had a sphere of influence in china during the boxer rebellion just like all of the European countries.

Or how about the entire United States was taken from thousands of Native American tribes.

Or how about the entire United States was taken from thousands of Native American tribes

Germany was taken from the Cimbri and Teutones.
China was taken by the Mongols.
Alexander the Great took Persia.
Saddam took Iraq from the Iraqi people.

Name a country that hasn't been ruled by another, or a race that hasn't been enslaved by another.

It happens and it's a tiresome argument.

So now we're deciding whether we're an empire by time-period, Andrew? If I remember my history, the Roman Empire didn't become an empire overnight (Rome wasn't built in a day and all that). So arguing that an invasion of Canada was not an imperial invasion because it happened a couple of hundred years ago isn't really a defense.

Nor is stating that the invaders are all dead a defense. These are pretty lame arguments against the idea that we are an empire if all you can argue is that that happened before we were born.

Canada: yeah, Revolutionary War days. Mexico, yeah, a hundred years ago. Cuba, mistake under wonderful JFK. Korea, well being Korean I can safely say that was a good thing. France, we were asked to by the French. Germany, declared war on us. Same with Italy. China, we were sent as a peacekeeping force (and weren't even the main force) during the Boxer Rebellion. Afghanistan attacked us via Bin Laden. And out of all of these, how many do we still control? Iraq (for now). Guam. Hawaii. That is it. Big empire here.

Andrew, If a prostitute has been selling her body for 30 years, does that mean she's no longer a prostitute if she does not sell it today, but waits until tomorrow? If an empire does not rape and conquer today, biding its time until ready, but has been doing so for 200 years, it is still an empire.

The fact is, the United States attacked Mexico and forced Mexico to cede what is now Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, Oklahoma and parts of Kansas and Wyoming, 40 percent of its territory. Ironically, President Polk, another loser in history, was criticized by Congress a month before the war's conclusion for "a war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States." Critically involved in passage of that resolution was U.S. Rep. Abraham Lincoln, Whig-Ill., whose opposition to the war led him to prominence and to the presidency 12 years later.

Note also that the invasions of Canada in the War of 1812 led to the Treaty of 1818 which caused Great Britain to cede the Northwest Angle of Northern Minnesota to the United States and thus established the basis for the U.S.' "Manifest Destiny" claims to Oregon Country [the northwestern United States today] in the 1840s. "Fifty-four Forty or Fight," remember? Again, empire-building.

As for Korea, Andrew, it is perhaps shameful you do not know your own country's history. The United States invaded Korea in 1871 without Korean permission, seeking to establish a concession much like the Great Powers at the time had coerced out of China. The Koreans called it Sinmiyangyo, which I was taught means "Western Disturbance of the Year Sinmi" in Korean. Whatever, the Americans won the war but lost the peace, as the Koreans refused to open up the country for trade. It took 11 more years until relations would be normalized, during which time anti-Asian sentiment in the western U.S. led to restrictive immigration laws and in effect soured any real "normalization" until after World War II.

You view the prostitute grown decrepit and diseased by years of depravity and say this could never have been some good woman's daughter, this could never have been a decent girl. Yet you support her anyway, Andrew, rising to extol her "beauty" and never realize how wrong you are.

Check the track marks down her arm. These are the brutal dictatorships she has fostered, replacing them at her whim when they failed to maintain her "high", failed to make her feel happy.

Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran (oh yes, the Shah was America's boy; Teddy Roosevelt's grandson admitted the CIA assassinated Mossadegh in '48), Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Congo/Zaire under Mobutu, South Africa under Vorster and de Klerk, Indonesia under Sukarno and Suharto, the list goes on and on.

***

Name a country that hasn't been ruled by another, or a race that hasn't been enslaved by another.

It happens and it's a tiresome argument.

Ivy Mike, tiresome perhaps, and yet very much to the point. [Except for Saddam and Iraq. You need to go read up on that.] When the Mongols invaded China, they didn't send out press releases that they were coming to liberate China from the godless Chinese. No, their message if message they had was short and sweet: We're here to rape and pillage, so let's burn the f^cking village.

You want to root for the United States to rape and pillage? Fine. But don't claim that you're doing it for the victims' own good. That's just too much, you know?

These are pretty lame arguments against the idea that we are an empire if all you can argue is that that happened before we were born.

GeorgeOrwell rightly points out, Andrew, that were you to rely too strongly on that argument of yours, in a few years you could be traveling to Tel Aviv, Palestine. Israel would have no right to exist because "all that Holocaust stuff happened before we were born. Therefore the world has no debt to the Jewish people."

While that doesn't make it right, I agree with you completely.

You're correct, it doesn't make it right. I just get so tired of people using the "Native American" argument. Especially when they're buying it back from us store by store. It just proves to me that no matter what the adversity, people can and will overcome.

If a prostitute decides that being a prostitute is wrong and doesn't do it anymore, is she still a prostitute?

Do you see any former prostitutes in the current adminstration? No, because they're all still strolling the boulevard.

OK, that was flippant. The correct answer is that the reputation and the tendency remains with her until death.

And then the United States liberated Korea, this time actually freeing her.

Kim Jong Il might dispute that.

Andrew @#23.5

The Boxer rebellion happened when a bunch of foreign countries (United States, Britain, Japan, Germany, Russia, Italy, and Austria) split up the major ports of China for selling their own goods in what was known as a sphere of influence. Basically a you stay out of my area and I'll stay out of yours. These countries were trying to push further and further into China and the Chinese government did nothing about it until the society of harmonious fists came along. I had to write an essay about it for a US history test sophomore year of college.

for your own reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion

Andrew, why don't you address this:

Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran (oh yes, the Shah was America's boy; Teddy Roosevelt's grandson admitted the CIA assassinated Mossadegh in '48), Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Congo/Zaire under Mobutu, South Africa under Vorster and de Klerk, Indonesia under Sukarno and Suharto, the list goes on and on.

America exerts power over the world in a way that can only be described as imperialism.

You should take a US history class Andrew. They're really interesting in college.

Kim Jong Il is also a totaliarian and a human rights abuser.

Andhrew, me boy, have ye iver thought of actu'lly thinkin' before ye reply t'me at all at all?

That was me p'int an' ye've stated it so luvly there. The United States didn't "liberate" North Korea, condemning those people to 50 years of slavery.

I took an Advanced Placement US History class. It was very interesting.

There's a difference between a High School class that you get college credit for and a class taught by a professor who loves the subject they're teaching and has spent their life studying it while you're surrounded by highly intellectual individuals that enrich the class experience by engaging in interesting discussions and debate.

Gee, I know I really learned a lot here from these latter day Frederick Jackson Turners including the hence heretofore little-known fact that the US assassinated an Iranian prime minister in 1948 who went on to live until 1967.

Get smarter here, indeed!! ROTFLMAO.

oops wrong word. Deposed, I meant. Good catch, Bill. It was in Chile we assassinated the president, Allende I believe was his name.

Nicaragua: Probably not justified, but we don't own that anymore.
El Salvador: We haven't done anything as far as I can tell.
Guatemala: We helped some rebels who were oppressed by their government by giving them weapons. Mostly to stop communism. Then, we stopped supplying them with weapons.
Haiti: There was complete anarchy. And the Germans sure would have liked to invade America through Haiti. After WWI, we gave it up.
DR: Teddy Roosevelt made some stupid mistakes. We left. End of story.
Grenada: Governor general asked us to go in.
Pakistan: ?
Iraq: We've discussed this already
Iran: Mistake. No country is perfect.
Equatorial Guinea: ?
Gabon: ?
Congo/Zaire: ?
South Africa: ?
Indonesia: Kennedy made a stupid mistake. We don't run Indonesia. We aren't even their main trading partner.

A response based on ignorance hardly justifies my time, but in the spirit of education, here goes. Really, Andrew, you should repeat that AP History course. This time, actually show up to class!

The beautiful thing about the American Empire is that we don't have to "own" countries. Renting them is much cheaper. We prop up a dictator or otherwise shady regime with aid and if need be "military advisers" in exchange for said dictator/shady regime doing whatever dirty work we require. Thus, if we fear the Katangans and Patrice Lumumba after Lumumba got popularly elected in the Congo, we aid [quietly, of course] a faction led by Joseph-Desiré Mobutu and help kidnap Lumumba, beat him to death and install Joseph Mobutu as president. When he changes his name to Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu wa Za Banga [ loosely translated as "the warrior who is braver than lions and whose feces are pleasant to the taste" /facetiousness] and becomes a kleptocrat ne plus utra, The United States will give him billions — BILLIONS — of dollars to keep him bribed so that Congo — which he has restyled as Zaire — does not decide to let its considerable wealth of natural resources fall into the hands of the Soviet Empire. When he dies and is no longer useful to America, the U.S. will abandon Congo to the dubious mercy of warlords who have killed 1 million people in the past decade, not counting the genocidaires in neighboring Rwanda's brutal ethnic cleansing, who have fled to eastern Congo and continue the killing on a low-level scale to this day.U.S. role in Lumumba's murder

We especially love dictators who sit on top of oil. Hence the longevity of Gabon's El-Hadj Omar Bongo Ondimba, formerly Omar Bongo, formerly Albert-Bernard Bongo, who has been president since 2 Dec., 1967. Although born the youngest of 12 to a poor family in an obscure French colony (previously one-fourth of French Equatorial Africa), he is now one of the wealthiest men in the world. Gabon achieved independence in 1960 and Ondimba was elected vice-president in 1961. He has never relinquished power, acceding to the presidency on the death in 1967 of his predecessor Léon M'ba. Oil was discovered offshore in the early 1970s and the corrupt exploitation of that resource has made Ondimba a multi-billionaire. While Gabon's per capita income is four times that of its neighbours, the statistic is misleading. A small number of Gabonese do verrry well, but the vast majority live in dire poverty. George W. Bush invites Ondimba to the White House regularly, perhaps to pass more bribes so that the Gabonese oil continues to flow toward American shores.

Equatorial Guinea's long-serving "president" Teodoro Obiang Nguenma Mbasogo, who long cultivated a whispered reputation as a cannibal, has had a more chequered relationship with his American overlords, having had the temerity to accuse the American ambassador of practicing witchcraft in 1993. From Wikipedia, since I am running short on time:

Equatorial Guinea's relations with the United States entered a cooling phase in 1993, when then-ambassador John E. Bennett was accused of practicing witchcraft at the graves of 10 British airmen who were killed when their plane crashed there during World War II. Bennett departed after receiving a death threat at the U.S. Embassy in Malabo in 1994;[5] in his farewell address, he publicly named the government's most notorious torturers – including Equatorial Guinea's current Minister of National Security, Manuel Nguema Mba. No new envoy was appointed, and the embassy was closed in 1996, leaving its affairs to be handled by the embassy in neighboring Cameroon.
Things started to turn around after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, in the aftermath of which the United States sought a radical reprioritization in its dealings with key African states. On January 25, 2002, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, a Jerusalem-based think tank, sponsored a forum on "African Oil: A Priority for U.S. National Security and African Development" at the University Club in Washington, DC. According to the Institute, "West African oil is what can help stabilize the Middle East, end Muslim terror, and secure a measure of energy security. First, the Africa Initiative is Africa's Turn. And, turning Africa can help turn the kaleidoscope that will reset misalliances and unseat misrule driven by oil and murder. It's a policy".[6] Speaking at the IASPS forum, Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Walter H. Kansteiner said, "African oil is of national strategic interest to us, and it will increase and become more important as we move forward. It will be people like you who are going to develop that resource, bring that oil home, and try to develop the African countries as you do it."[6]
In a lengthy state visit from March to April 2006, President Obiang sought to reopen the closed embassy, claiming that "the lack of a U.S. diplomatic presence is definitely holding back economic growth."[7] President Obiang was warmly greeted by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who called him a "good friend",[8] and Obiang himself was "extremely pleased and hopeful that this relationship will continue to grow in friendship and cooperation." The PR company of Cassidy & Associates may be partially responsible for this change in the relations between Obiang and the United States government. Since 2004, Cassidy has been employed by the dictator's government at a rate of at least $120,000 a month.[9]
By October 2006, however, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had raised concerns about the proposal to build the new embassy on land owned by Mba himself, whom the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has accused of directly overseeing the torture of opponents of Obiang's regime. [10]

"Good friend" or not, the U.S. was involved in the Wonga Coup, [read the book by Economist journalist Adam Roberts] to depose the ailing Obiang so as to gain even better access to Equato-Guinean oil. The coup failed, yet Obiang's days are clearly numbered and it is expected the Americans will do their best to put their puppet in place once he fades from the scene.
The Wonga coup

A conservative perspective which admits some ugly truths

More as I have time for it. Real life duties call.

Thank you for the background on the Congo, Dagda. What is one of the biggest mysteries to me is how that particular conflict, its root causes and the part played by the CIA (and therefore the US) just does not get coverage in the media to correspond with the gravity of what's been happening.

The numbers of lives lost, if accurate, beggar belief. It's not just a million. Could be as high as FIVE million which brings it close the worst of the Holocaust. And it's not just the appetite in the MSM to bring Congo to the front that is strange. It is the reluctance by anyone here on Newsvine to help raise the bar that I find equally baffling.

I have an example of what I mean. I seeded Congo: The Invisible War from Democracy Now less than a couple of months ago. 6 votes; 3 commenters, despite some attempts to raise the profile says it all. NBC Nightly News picked up the news item a few weeks ago. Not much traction arising from that either. There just is not the appetite. I wonder why?

I do not for a second believe that America is a land of thugs. Not in this modern age. Many in this thread have already touched on its 'empire'. Its imperial reaches are nowhere in the same league as empires of yore. But when you add in the effect of power, wealth and strong corporations with a global reach, it is not hard to see how American imperialism has manifested itself across the globe, even if unintended.

It is not a class-based society in the traditional sense. But class is an important aspect of American society. One that cuts way beyond simply class in its primitive sense. It is far more sophisticated that just class. It is nowhere near as evil as the Nazis. But the dangers of fascism have been lying dormant in the society for long enough. They just need a few triggers to surface. And some aspects are surfacing. For links between good old Dubya and Hitler, if one hasn't read Pamela Drew's excellent article, it is high time to do so. Galley Cat linked to it in #54.3 below.

I realize that it comes as a shock to many who have been, like old King Theodin, nearly strangled to death by the leftist Grima Wormtongues.

I'll give you props for good use of an allusion, but I'm taking them away again for trying to say everyone who disagrees with you has been somehow controlled.

If you look in the mirror, and don't like what you see, blame the mirror. It's that simple with these "righties"...

With all do respect Tom. I had to throw that in there because I've noticed you using the term "lefties" lately... =P

If you look in the mirror, and don't like what you see, blame the mirror. It's that simple with these "righties"...

The right does sometimes blame the mirror... but more often than not, we end up trying to change what causes that image (us)... where as the left, if they see a morbidly obese person, they dont encourage weight loss, they drop an ass pile of money on a bigger mirror.

That's a good point.

but more often than not, we end up trying to change what causes that image

When, in recent years, have the Republicans tried to change? Specific examples, please?

The current administration isn't representative of many of the relatively moderate Republicans on this site. Some however, defend them because they do in a sense, represent them, they share a party. If you look at current approval ratings however, you will be hard pressed to find many that agree with the Bush admins policies. Here however, it generally turns into a right versus left argument and we tend to lump right with right and left with left.

MartinEZ,

I have no idea what your political leanings are, but I find it rather trying that I am constantly lumped in as some sort of nutcase because I don't agree with what people like Shawn say, lumping all of the so-called left into one big shiny box so that he can basically just denigrate the value of their argument, not by showing that that argument is correct or not, but just by dismissing them as some kind of crazy lunatic.

For 12 years now, many on the moderate left have been pointing out just how corrupt the Republican Congress and the Administration have been and just how destructive they have been for this country. And we have been labeled as anti-American, unpatriotic, fifth columnists, traitors, cowards, disloyal, and any of a hundred, thousand other things which so-called mainstream Republicans could come up with to call us. Yet, in that 12 years, if you simply look at the facts, you will see that just about everything moderate liberals have said about the country and the direction it is heading in have come true. Iraq was and is a mess; the economy is tanking; inflation for middle-class wage earners is causing severe distress in the middle-class; job losses are up; education has not gotten better teaching to the test; the basic quality of life in our country has grown worse.

Yet Shawn writes some slop about how only the right tries to make changes for the better, and then you come to his defense. What exactly am I supposed to make of that?

The current administration is highly representative of the moderate Republicans on this site. Like them, it does not listen to reason and simply lumps anyone who disagrees with it into a large pool of "them." You as an individual may not believe that to be true, but you, as a defender of remarks made by Shawn, are guilty of the same sort of mass lumping.

Yet, in that 12 years, if you simply look at the facts, you will see that just about everything moderate liberals have said about the country and the direction it is heading in have come true.

I agree...

I did say we in the comment above, meaning me and many others. Obviously some are better at separating the differences and elaboration on them individually than others but I digress. I am guilty of "lumping" them together as well. I admit it.

What I said about Shawn stems from the "relationship" that was built here on the vine. Ive spent almost two years here (Shawn is over two), writing very little, commenting a little more, but reading a lot. I "know" Shawn and other even more "radical" viners' as I see them on the vine and my comments change depending on the person, context, and interpreted meaning of the comment I am replying too. Interpretation is the Achilles Heel of the blog'o'sphere. It takes quite some time to get know someone when you can't look them in the eyes when they are talking to you. It takes much longer to figure people out when all you have to work with a black and white text.

There really wasn't anything deplorable about his remarks. It was a snark comment made in jest about a semi truism. Democrats generally spend more that Republicans, minus Bush. I wasn't necessarily defending Shawn because I agree with him, I was just agreeing with him. I give less credit to those that can't maintain a leveled and balanced (or centrist view) of things, thus more radical babel spews from my mouth in general when responding to radical comments (it might confuse those that do not imagine it in the same tone I would regularly carry it in while speaking with them in person, interpretation). However, the people I know and see at least trying to keep their view of the world in the middle, as to be able to at least peak over the horizon and see the other side, I am regularly pleasant and fair with. That is all I was trying to be.

I reasoned the Bush comment under the implication that even though Shawn might have problems with liberal spending under a "liberal" government, I don't see him vehemently defending the Bush administration's policies and crazy "right wing agendas" like other's who lean right on this site do.

Personally I would give moderate Republicans a lot more slack if they hadn't rubber stamped every outrageous act Bush has committed in the last 7 years. If they had stood up and been counted they might have my respect if not my admiration.

@ TJG

When, in recent years, have the Republicans tried to change? Specific examples, please?

When? well... in recent years. Did you mean "how?"

Well... I'm a Republican and I try to change daily. Personal growth if you will... now if you meant the Republican Party, stipulate this. The Republican party has tried to change a LOT over that past 3 Years... turn ohe TV, pick up a paper... a growing number of Republicans in Congress have distanced themselves from Bush - even McCain seemed to cringe at Bush's endorsement.

Republicans (party) have also warmed up (very little) to gay marriage, taken a weaker stance of the abolition of abortion, and have been critical of the War in Iraq as well

Why not look at the big picture TJG? You seem to really only harp on Republicans about Bush. Bush isn't the voice of the Repubclian Ideology. I'll ask you for a THIRD time on a THIRD thread, explain why it is you argue against a Republican person and not the Republican ideology? Do you know the platform of Republicans? quid pro quo.

@ GeorgeOrwell

You seem to take a hard opposition to what I write... and that's fine. I generally will snap at a comment that pulls too hard on one direction for my tastes, but that's allowed. I didn't' see MartinEZ defend me, he merely agreed with a comment I wrote. Honestly, he and I have had it out more than once in the past, and I left snarky remarks with him to. Actually, I thinkt he first run in he and I had was on a very early Immigration discussion... and I wanted so badly to kick him in the teeth... but that was a feeling that pertained to that discussion only. MOST of my 'friends' on NV are ideological opposites...

I'm not selectively an @!$%#.

Though later I learned that MartinEZ tends to try and keep a balance in things, and while I'm a Moderate Republican, I do tend to also agree with more conservative ideas... sue me.

Also, you feel what I write is slop only because you disagree. If I posted the same set of comments on a left leaning thread, I'd be lucky to get 1 vote on my comments. It's about real estate, but as you know, lack of votes hasn't stopped me from commenting my polar opinions on those threads either.

The current administration is highly representative of the moderate Republicans on this site. Like them, it does not listen to reason and simply lumps anyone who disagrees with it into a large pool of "them." You as an individual may not believe that to be true, but you, as a defender of remarks made by Shawn, are guilty of the same sort of mass lumping.

You lumped people in that assertion... go figure.

I don't agree with what people like Shawn say, lumping all of the so-called left into one big shiny box so that he can basically just denigrate the value of their argument, not by showing that that argument is correct or not, but just by dismissing them as some kind of crazy lunatic.

Well... I didn't see you espousing any sort of ideology, but made great effort in distancing yourself from what I opine. That sort of make you a "them", especially when you, in the same comment delineate yourself from 'people like Shawn"... or, "them" from your standpoint.

Yet Shawn writes some slop about how only the right tries to make changes for the better, and then you come to his defense. What exactly am I supposed to make of that?

Is it slop? Does the Right NOT try to make change for the better? If it doesn't then, maybe it IS slop, but calling it slop without any kind of backing... is slop.

@ MartinEZ

. Ive spent almost two years here (Shawn is over two), writing very little, commenting a little more, but reading a lot. I "know" Shawn and other even more "radical" viners' as I see them on the vine and my comments change depending on the person, context, and interpreted meaning of the comment I am replying too.

I wasn't aware that anyone kept track.

The current administration is highly representative of the moderate Republicans on this site.

I honestly meant is *not* highly representative of the moderates....

I even proof read that one. I'm loosin' it.

The radicals on the other hand seem to go out of their way.

I honestly meant is *not* highly representative of the moderates....

I even proof read that one. I'm loosin' it.

The radicals on the other hand seem to go out of their way.

I knew what you meant. The smallest numbers talk the most... in this case the Radicals are few, but ou'd never know it by how loud their voices are. It's also easier for them to organize, since there are so few there is not much work to do to get them from point A to point B, and their snmall size lets them move quickly... but I knew what you meant.

Shawn,

You seem to have reading comprehension problems. In 24.10 you quote me correctly but then completely ignore what I wrote. I wrote,

Yet Shawn writes some slop about how only the right tries to make changes for the better, and then you come to his defense. What exactly am I supposed to make of that?

I did not say that the right (at least some of it) doesn't try to change things for the better; I said you say only the right tries to change things for the better, which is an accurate representation of what you have said here. Go look at what you've written about the right and the left on this thread.

As for lumping moderate conservatives in with the Admin: My point was, and perhaps I did not make it as clearly as I should have, that moderate conservatives were quite willing to ignore just how corrupt and incompetent the Bush Administration was when they thought it would suit their purposes at the expense of the rest of us, i.e. Iraq, Warrantless Wiretaps, medical diagnoses on the Senate floor from two minutes of videotape, NOLA, ad naseuem.

Your argument that Republicans are trying to change by distancing themselves from Bush is completely absurd. Congressional Republicans are only distancing themselves from Bush because they wish to get re-elected, certainly not out of any ideological epiphany, which is what you are trying to make us believe is happening.

Concerning social issues: Again, an absurd statement. Now you're lumping your whole party into some sort of moderate wing, which again is just not true. Pat Robertson, Hagee, Parsley, they are all considered mainstream members of the Republican Party. McCain has come out and actively fought for the endorsement of these men, all who believe that 9/11 was caused by the Homosexual, pagan, secularist left-wing agenda. To say you don't agree with these men but will gladly accept their endorsement when that endorsement comes with strings attached is just flim-flam. And let us not forget that these men already have a direct line to the WH and are directly involved in helping make policy. Policy which Republicans were quite willing to let them make when they thought it would win them elections.

I did not say that the right (at least some of it) doesn't try to change things for the better; I said you say only the right tries to change things for the better, which is an accurate representation of what you have said here. Go look at what you've written about the right and the left on this thread.

I don't need to look at what I wrote. I was there when I wrote it. However, you're right... I made a logical error... I guess.. you're just more manly than I.

As for lumping moderate conservatives in with the Admin: My point was, and perhaps I did not make it as clearly as I should have, that moderate conservatives were quite willing to ignore just how corrupt and incompetent the Bush Administration was when they thought it would suit their purposes at the expense of the rest of us, i.e. Iraq, Warrantless Wiretaps, medical diagnoses on the Senate floor from two minutes of videotape, NOLA, ad naseuem.

Wiretaps? You don't remember Clinton saying that he wants MORE wiretaps huh? convenient. And, as per the rest of you complaints, I do vividly recall many of the citizens making a lot of noise about this, however I do not recall any of the Democratic candidates mentioning a single one in way of reversing it or altering it... so go ahead and lump the group of moderate Republicans that 'ignore' this in with the Democrat candidates who do not address it in their current campaign, or the Congress people who allow it, pass it, and also do not address it.

Your argument that Republicans are trying to change by distancing themselves from Bush is completely absurd. Congressional Republicans are only distancing themselves from Bush because they wish to get re-elected, certainly not out of any ideological epiphany, which is what you are trying to make us believe is happening.

In some cases yes, but you're lumping again... don't allege that I lump by in turn lumping.

I get the feeling you're attempting to convince me that Republicans are evil and liars? If so, yeah, some are. But where is the condescending tone out of the other side of your face, towards Democrats who do the same, or Independents who do the same.

the difference here, between you and I in this debate, is that I assert things about Republicans and am one. You assert things about Republicans and aren't.

Again, an absurd statement. Now you're lumping your whole party into some sort of moderate wing, which again is just not true. Pat Robertson, Hagee, Parsley, they are all considered mainstream members of the Republican Party. McCain has come out and actively fought for the endorsement of these men, all who believe that 9/11 was caused by the Homosexual, pagan, secularist left-wing agenda.

Um... this has anything to do with my position how?

I don't think 9/11 had anything to do with any Americans agenda. And, given the entire Obama / Wright 'incident' it has been exampled that one can be friends with, but not agree with a person or people. Hell, I disagree strongly with a majority of my NV friends list... I guess I'm just a fraud.

To say you don't agree with these men but will gladly accept their endorsement when that endorsement comes with strings attached is just flim-flam.

Well I guess it's a good thing I didn't say that then, huh?

And let us not forget that these men already have a direct line to the WH and are directly involved in helping make policy. Policy which Republicans were quite willing to let them make when they thought it would win them elections.

Two items: Paul Wolfowitz / Israel

I mean seriously...

Shawn,

You're really reaching, aren't you. Save for a token acknowledgement that you didn't actually read what you were debating against, you pretty much ignore the main point of my post, which was to point out to you that you state you are some form of moderate who criticizes equally when you actually don't.

Wiretaps: I wrote warrantless wiretaps. Again that reading comprehension problem.

Criticizing the Candidates: Again, we were discussing your lumping all lefties into a box. I don't remember you saying anywhere that we were just talking about candidates, but if you'd like, we can do that.

Mainstream Religious Right leaders who make statements about how terrible the US is isn't an issue for you? But that's what this whole thread is all about, how supposedly there are all these lefties decrying the US and its policies. But Mainstream Religious Right leaders doing the same thing isn't. Okay, I get it now.

I'm not trying to convince you that Republicans are liars and evil. I don't think most of them are. That seems to be your line. The only thing you've said about the right is just how wonderful you all are, and how terrible all lefties are. You seem to have no problem criticizing lefties, which you aren't, but I can't point out Republican faults. Again, I get it now.

Your Wolfowitz and Israel allusions add nothing other than you actually know less about the Religious leanings of the person you and others helped put in office. You might actually read some of things Bush says he believes when it comes to Religion. And please don't ignore Hagee or Robertson. But that might be too hard for you.

I mean seriously...

Bush isn't the voice of the Repubclian Ideology. I'll ask you for a THIRD time on a THIRD thread, explain why it is you argue against a Republican person and not the Republican ideology? Do you know the platform of Republicans? quid pro quo.

Bush is the current president, is a republican and has much to do with shaping republican ideology and leadership. I do argue against the republican ideology and yes, I know the platform of the republican party. I also know that many republicans, who claim to be so moderate also do all sorts of gymnastics to defend Bush, rather than stepping away from him.

I'll ask you for a THIRD time on a THIRD thread, explain why it is you argue against a Republican person and not the Republican ideology? Do you know the platform of Republicans? quid pro quo.

I can't answer for Shawn, but I can answer for myself. Arguing for or against the Republican platform is pointless because the Republicans themselves don't adhere to their platform, and haven't for years. This is the reason I am no longer a Republican. In days long past, I would put up with their Bible-thumping because about half of their platform was valid. They still pay lip service to the Second Amendment and to less government interference, but sadly that's all it is. If there still are Republicans who really believe in smaller government, they should try electing some.

@ George Orwell

You're really reaching, aren't you. Save for a token acknowledgement that you didn't actually read what you were debating against, you pretty much ignore the main point of my post

well when you have one, maybe I'll get it.

I mean seriously...

0 points for originality. Get your own snarky line.

Wiretaps: I wrote warrantless wiretaps. Again that reading comprehension problem.

All wiretaps are warrantless. Do the police knock ont he persons door and exclaim they've got a warrant to wiretap? no. I can play semantics too...

Criticizing the Candidates: Again, we were discussing your lumping all lefties into a box. I don't remember you saying anywhere that we were just talking about candidates, but if you'd like, we can do that.

Mainstream Religious Right leaders who make statements about how terrible the US is isn't an issue for you? But that's what this whole thread is all about, how supposedly there are all these lefties decrying the US and its policies. But Mainstream Religious Right leaders doing the same thing isn't. Okay, I get it now.

I'm not trying to convince you that Republicans are liars and evil. I don't think most of them are. That seems to be your line. The only thing you've said about the right is just how wonderful you all are, and how terrible all lefties are. You seem to have no problem criticizing lefties, which you aren't, but I can't point out Republican faults. Again, I get it now.

Look, if you're going to ask I adhere to the no lumping rule, then you need to do that before I play your little reindeer game...

@TJG

Bush is the current president, is a republican and has much to do with shaping republican ideology and leadership. I do argue against the republican ideology and yes, I know the platform of the republican party. I also know that many republicans, who claim to be so moderate also do all sorts of gymnastics to defend Bush, rather than stepping away from him.

I don't think Bush has much to do with shaping the republican ideology. I think he's perceived as such and I think that the overall national feelings as similar to yours, but I think that Bush, for the most part is a rouge. Sometimes it's been helpful to this country and others it's been hurtful. As to how Bush will go down in history no one can say for certain, but we do know he's gone soon so many people will breather easier than the past 8 years. However, for the most part I am a very moderate person. Recently I've gotten more worked up over certain issues than normal, but I also feel that this has happened with everyone - its an election year and political debates are abound to surge in the veins here...

I don't 'defend Bush'... so in the future, when we debate or converse, don't assume that I'm defending Bush. I don't really like Bush's action. I understand a few of them and agree to the purpose behind them, but not the way in which it was handled. I really get annoyed dnad frustrated with you when it seems as though you talk to me like I'm stupid, or that I have no idea what a Republican is (that I'm some kind of follower). I admit that in the past and even recently I've been less than.... amicable towards a majority of your comments, but know that this doesn't mean I dislike YOU as a person. I just don't like some of how you say things or your reasons behind saying them. And, I'm sure the feelings are reciprocal. That is okay with me, disagreeing is fine... but in the future I'll try to be less abrasive if you also agree to stop attacking Republicans as if we're Bush Jr's... we're not.

I think in essence, all I've ever really ask 9at least directly) of you in way of a personal favor is that you make a concerted effort in understanding that I'm not the Republican that goes to arms (and I've made that hard to see, I admit that), quickly over silly things - but I am the Republican that has strong feelings and convictions towards my opinions. I will defend them fiercely and I will defend an opinion that I agree with just as fiercely as well...

I see faults int eh Republican party, I may not vocalize them but it doesn't mean I don't see them. Likewise, I see good in the left, but I do't vocalize it as often... but it doesn't mean I don't see it. Sometimes TJG, you'll better understand what I'm saying by looking at what I didn't say.

@Griff69

This is the reason I am no longer a Republican. In days long past, I would put up with their Bible-thumping because about half of their platform was valid. They still pay lip service to the Second Amendment and to less government interference, but sadly that's all it is. If there still are Republicans who really believe in smaller government, they should try electing some.

There are politicians on both sides that lip service... and the lip service hurts many things... I just keep in mind that the government is a business and the point of a business is to make money. The difference in the two main ideologies is they type of business they run... Still, I don't lose hope in the people who want to be in office because there is going to be those few people who can make a positive difference... and no... I'm still not voting for Obama, becuase I don't like how he wants to enact his ideas.

Okay, so you obviously don't read and you know even less about the Law. Go read up. It's not worth my time to point out to you that there are courts and that you have to present to these courts why you plane to wiretap someone. Geez, Louise; that's just plain ignorant.

Please point out where I lumped in that quote: Unless you are talking about Mainstream Right Religious leaders who made statements about 9/11 being our fault. As that's not particularly lumping as I was pointing out a pretty specific group, you're way off base again.

As for you; you still haven't answered why it's perfectly all right for you to criticize lefties and/or Democrats, but it's not all right for others to criticize the Republicans and/or righties. This is your position. Again, can you say hypocrite.

I'm done with you, Shawn, because it's quite obvious that you have serious comprehension problems, and I'm just wasting my time talking to a wall.

The only thing you've said that's even partially truthful is that there are politicians on both sides that play lip service, and even there it's just another cop out.

Okay, so you obviously don't read and you know even less about the Law. Go read up. It's not worth my time to point out to you that there are courts and that you have to present to these courts why you plane to wiretap someone. Geez, Louise; that's just plain ignorant.

Please point out where I lumped in that quote: Unless you are talking about Mainstream Right Religious leaders who made statements about 9/11 being our fault. As that's not particularly lumping as I was pointing out a pretty specific group, you're way off base again.

As for you; you still haven't answered why it's perfectly all right for you to criticize lefties and/or Democrats, but it's not all right for others to criticize the Republicans and/or righties. This is your position. Again, can you say hypocrite.

I'm done with you, Shawn, because it's quite obvious that you have serious comprehension problems, and I'm just wasting my time talking to a wall.

The only thing you've said that's even partially truthful is that there are politicians on both sides that play lip service, and even there it's just another cop out.

Summary:

I'm left without a geometric shape in which to talk, and there are no corners that I can back you into. I'm going to throw in a towel becuase I'm tired of repeating myself.

Response:

Okay. And?

As for you; you still haven't answered why it's perfectly all right for you to criticize lefties and/or Democrats, but it's not all right for others to criticize the Republicans and/or righties. This is your position. Again, can you say hypocrite.

Hypocrite, a very short three syllable word, is not hard to say. It's about a 5th or 6th grade vocabulary word.

You assert this is my position becuase you want it to be. I've debated against fellow Republicans and I don't prohibit anyone from debating or talking against someone on the right / Republicans. When TJG responded about bush being the current president, and who she felt her attacks on the Republican platform based on Bush - did I respond by effectively telling her she's wrong and to shut up? no. Clearly, I do not prohibit the left from speaking negatively about the right.

But wait... you never said "prohibit". You said "why is it all right" for me to do it but no one else.

Disagreeing with a point made by the opposing ideology is not the same as acting or implying as if it is not 'all right' for them to attack my ideology. To think that, is taking things out of context, off base, and serves to create a false proposition. You constantly oppose my views and vice-vera... did I ever tell you that it was not all right for you to say or think what you do? not once.

you've got a good concept in that tactic, it would work on an audience of lesser intelligence, but your execution is weak and falls under the weight of being completely false.

Okay, so you obviously don't read and you know even less about the Law. Go read up. It's not worth my time to point out to you that there are courts and that you have to present to these courts why you plane to wiretap someone. Geez, Louise; that's just plain ignorant.

no, you were playing semantics and I played back. Warranted IS 'warranted' as a writ from a court commanding police to perform specified acts as opposed to 'with a reason'. The wiretaps are an executive order done without warrant (court order) becuase to get a warrant is to delay the process making vital information outdated or unattainable. People freak out because the media plays it up with moral panic. Not everyone is tapped, and they're not tapped for hours on end. Nor are the taps completely random. If you recall, congress loved the idea until one or two of them were tapped and then suddenly it was 'Unconstitutional'... but, here is a speculative work that is fairly sound. I'll tell you now, I can build a device to listen into cell phone conversations - nothing you can do to stop me from it, as it is perfectly legal as long as I do not alter signal strength, reroute the call or interject my voice. I built one back in the days of the old Nokia 5725's... and could hear all SORTS of spicy stuff... and it was legal. :)

Please point out where I lumped in that quote

Why? It's plainly in front of you. Read your statements. You want me to lead the horse AND make it drink? tsk tsk tsk.

I'm done with you, Shawn, because it's quite obvious that you have serious comprehension problems

are you breaking up with me? After all we've been through? (huff)...

and I'm just wasting my time talking to a wall.

well... I wanted to tell you I was seriously disinterested in anything you had to say, but you'd see that as a cop out. So... I think I'll go home and misunderstand "One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish"

There are politicians on both sides that lip service... and the lip service hurts many things...

Agreed. It seems to me to be more readily apparent with the pubs, but maybe that's just me.

I just keep in mind that the government is a business and the point of a business is to make money. The difference in the two main ideologies is they type of business they run...

Hopefully, here you are explaining what the government thinks their job is, rather than what it is really supposed to be. I will agree that there are those in the government who believe this. Anyone not an elected official who believes this should be offered remedial government and history classes. Any elected official who believes this should be executed for treason. It's that simple.

Agreed. It seems to me to be more readily apparent with the pubs, but maybe that's just me.

It's probably you. I see it more with the Democrats, but then that is probably just me. I see it mainly in this campaign where the Democrats spent 8 long years complaining about 'warrantless wiretaps', 'patriot act', and other right wing actions, but none of them seem to bring these issues back up when running for office... and it makes me wonder if they're just complaining beucase it wasn't their ide or it's not done the way they want it too.

Hillary lip services constantly, and pandering to the block votes of minorities is a form of lip service as well because rarely are the promised kept once in office... but the latter is something that both sides sometimes do.

Hopefully, here you are explaining what the government thinks their job is, rather than what it is really supposed to be.

Yeah... There is the text book government and the actual government. Sort of like college - they teach you what should be, not what is. And, most information taught is dated.

I see it mainly in this campaign where the Democrats spent 8 long years complaining about 'warrantless wiretaps', 'patriot act', and other right wing actions, but none of them seem to bring these issues back up when running for office...

That's because, as far as wire taps and extraordinary renditions are concerned, Bill Clinton used both in his administration. However, it would a appear in a far more responsible and less broad based manner. Clinton didn't strong arm the Justice Department to usurp judicial power and didn't invade countries. Clinton balanced the budget and the economy was booming.

On the other hand, Bush had begun to remap the Federal Government as we know.

And here is my big stinker with most of the republicans and their defenders on Newsvine and across the nation... They are first to defend small and limited Federal Government and promote more action on the Local levels, which I am a complete supporter of as well. However, they are too hard nosed to relinquish their support for an Administration which has exponentially increased the size, power and scope of the Federal Government and specifically the Executive branch. All while spending more money than even exists.

Will anyone please explain to me the vehement support Bush gets from people that demand just the opposite of what Bush does?

I get accused of supporting Bush a lot because of my views on Iraq, but I feel just as betrayed by him as some Democrats when it comes to the economy and how he's handled the war. In fact, I haven't seen any pubs on this site yet who are in full support of Bush. Most pubs just don't demonize him and consider him Hitler. There's a difference between seeing him as a human being and defending his actions.

As for phone taps, ironically Clinton tried to get them in the same way as Bush but the Republican congress wouldn't have it - said it was an unconstitutional invasion of our privacies. If they had been in place as Clinton wanted, 9/11 may have been avoided (since most of training and coordination for it happened right here in the US over a period of years leading up to it). If we had been monitoring the emails and phone calls of suspected terrorists, it might have been avoided. Of course, we'll never know. After 9/11, Bush obviously realized the reality of the threat that Clinton had warned against and had fought congress over. But partisan politics are such that the tables are now reversed. Just as the pubs were accusing Clinton of crying wolf during his presidency and after when it came to terrorism, the dems accuse Bush of crying wolf and fear mongering in order to advance his own agendas. The pubs were convinced that Clinton was only advancing his own agendas as well.

Will anyone please explain to me the vehement support Bush gets from people that demand just the opposite of what Bush does?

I'd offer up an explanation, but I'm not an avid Bush supporter. I like SOME things he's done, just as i like SOME things Clinton did.

23 million killed in wars since 1945. Most are civilians -- women and children

and the article says:

250 major wars in which over 23 million people have been killed, tens of millions made homeless, and countless millions injured and bereaved.

Number of those 250 'major wars" America has been directly involved in: 15

At least 75% of landmine victims are civilians.

Also, from this article - America hasn't laid landlines SINCE Vietnam
Number of wars women and children have fought in - a lot. Remember, America is one of the fwe countries where a woman can not be a combatant. This article don't blame America for anything.

Global Mercenary Networks

I could poke holes that, but the comments left to the author in his personal blog do it well enough (at least the few who actually understand that the author wasn't advertising or recruiting).

History over U.S. "Interventions" in Latin America

Mostly indirect involvement that resulted in no loss of life by our hands or with our weapons.

Here are the numbers on how many weapons we are selling and to whom.

Oddly, you see more AK-47s in the hands of people than a Winchester or Colt...

Here's a story about our 700 Plus military bases around the world

hmmm...

Overseas

As of 2003, U.S. troops were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 39 countries.[6] Some of the largest contingents are:
Germany 75,603
Japan (United States Forces Japan) 40,045
South Korea (United States Forces Korea ) 29,086
Italy 10,449
United Kingdom 10,331

As of May 5, 2007, there were about 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, according to Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the commander of day-to-day operations for Operation Iraqi Freedom.[7] About 19,500 U.S. troops are engaged elsewhere throughout the Middle East, with the bulk in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.

[edit] Within the United States

Including U.S. territories and ships afloat within territorial waters

A total of 1,112,684 personnel are on active duty within the United States including:[8]
Continental U.S. 900,088
Hawaii 33,343
Alaska 17,714
Afloat 109,119
Guam 3,784
Puerto Rico 1,552

-source which came from here and a better list of deployments - almost all of which have no issue with us being there.
so evil!

If that's what you want to believe, so be it. However last week Qwest and AT&T submitted to the courts evidence that Bush began his surveillance program 6 months before 9/11, and to this day it still includes Americans communicating with Americans.

Seriously. I can't believe people actually think the illegal wiretapping is used only on non-citizens. Do these people read?

More importantly, even pretending it were used only on non-citizens, how does that make it OK? So not being born in America means do you don't deserve the same consideration as those born in America? Really?

Actually it isnt about "place of birth" as much as it is about citizenship. To answer your question the 14th ammend. protects ONLY citizens over the age of 21. That is a legal answer to what I think is a legal question. If you were not referring to the legality of the issue--would you clarify your basis please.

My basis is that no person deserves to be spied on, be it American, Mexican, Afghan, Martian, whatever. Something can't be a "right" if it is conditioned by saying you must have been born in some arbitrary borders to qualify. This is not a "right," but a "privilege." When I say "right to privacy" I mean a basic human right, not a privilege of being born in a series of borders that 100 years from now might not even exist.

Why is it illegal for the government to spy on Americans without a search warrant? Because people are entitled to a right to privacy. Why doesn't this reason apply to all people? I mean, if the spying is warranted, then a warrant would be pretty easy to get, right?

There's a reason the Declaration of Independence doesn't say "All men born in America are created equal." It says the rights are "self-evident" and "inalienable" for a reason.

Sorry Adam to be a bit obtuse here--but when you say "no person deservesto be spied on"

Are are you referring to a moral or ethical principle by which we all live?

As to "basic human right"--and use privacy as an example. . . .does that apply to all---criminals, children, suspects in a police investigation (regardless of a warrant)?

It is illegal to spy on people (Citizens over the age of 21) in this country because the constitution says so, not because they are "entitled to it" unless you are acccepting the law in the first place. That is what determines the "legality" or "illegality" of an issue---The rule of Law in this country, at least, is based on the constitution--which is why I asked if your basis was "the law".

If someone has the basic human right to privacy--then why would a warrant be sufficient to deny them that right?

The inalienable rights cited in the Declaration of Independance include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; this document does not have the force of law however. For example, Thomas Jefferson (the author of the Declaration of Independance) kept slaves--which is certainly an abrogation of the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

The Constitution is the document which fulmates the groundwork for our american legal system. And it does state the rights of all citizens over the age of 21 are to be treated equally under the law. It purposely excludes minors and non-citizens.

I am not trying to be argumentative--rather I am attempting to see your viewpoint and understand better what you are talking about. I simply want to understand the foundation of your position better.

thank you

My basis is that no person deserves to be spied on, be it American, Mexican, Afghan, Martian, whatever. Something can't be a "right" if it is conditioned by saying you must have been born in some arbitrary borders to qualify.

Because we've had spies warning us against the enemies of our nation, you are still free to type that paragraph. I realize you may not understand that there are such things as "bad people" who want to hurt the people who live inside of these "arbitrary borders," and you have a perfect right and freedom to keep on believing that ... so long as there are those who are alert, diligent, and compassionate to protect you in your innocence and naivete.

Disappointed:

Are are you referring to a moral or ethical principle by which we all live?

I am referring to the "self-evident," "inalienable" rights mentioned repeatedly in the most sacred of "American" documents.

As to "basic human right"--and use privacy as an example. . . .does that apply to all---criminals, children, suspects in a police investigation (regardless of a warrant)?

Yes. Every single person has a right to privacy. This is what makes it a "right," as opposed to a "privilege."

It is illegal to spy on people (Citizens over the age of 21) in this country because the constitution says so, not because they are "entitled to it" unless you are acccepting the law in the first place. That is what determines the "legality" or "illegality" of an issue---The rule of Law in this country, at least, is based on the constitution--which is why I asked if your basis was "the law".

I disagree. Every single person is entitled to privacy. If the government has reason to believe a person is a threat, obtaining a warrant shouldn't be a problem. What is the possible harm in requiring a warrant?

If someone has the basic human right to privacy--then why would a warrant be sufficient to deny them that right?

Obviously it is because sometimes people will abuse that right to privacy and use it to harm others. If there is any reason at all to believe this, gaining a warrant should be easy. Warrants at least attempt to make it so only those that might be a threat can be spied upon, as opposed to anyone that gets in the government's way.

The inalienable rights cited in the Declaration of Independance include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; this document does not have the force of law however. For example, Thomas Jefferson (the author of the Declaration of Independance) kept slaves--which is certainly an abrogation of the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

Of course. The Declaration of Independence is not the reason I think people deserved to be treated with respect. I think this because I am a human being and value my own rights and those of others.

I only cited the Declaration of Independence to point out that a "right" isn't a "right" if it is exclusive to a country. This is a "privilege."

The Constitution is the document which fulmates the groundwork for our american legal system. And it does state the rights of all citizens over the age of 21 are to be treated equally under the law. It purposely excludes minors and non-citizens.

This has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

Tom:

Because we've had spies warning us against the enemies of our nation, you are still free to type that paragraph.

Alright, so let's go give all those rights up then!

I realize you may not understand that there are such things as "bad people" who want to hurt the people who live inside of these "arbitrary borders,"

... such as the US government in its illegal spying.

and you have a perfect right and freedom to keep on believing that ... so long as there are those who are alert, diligent, and compassionate to protect you in your innocence and naivete.

The only thing that's naive is to think the US government is actually using this to spy on suspected criminals. If that were the case, why would warrants be a problem?