America - The Official Thread

[Tacet_Blue]

He's gay. Of COURSE he's willingly turning his back mmmfffmmfmmffgggnggmmmffmmmpphmmmnnn!

Sorry, Ten... Couldn't resist a chance to lighten this turgid thread up a little

[/OT]

I can only assume it has been a long day in the labs, and someone has left the top off a bottle of ether

 

[PS]

Exactly what I was thinking ....
I think everyone already knows my stance on the Religion VS. Politics debate, so I'll leave it to you guys.

 

[a6m5]

Many people think aborition is a religious subject. That pro-lifers are religious. This is not necessarily the case. Some pro-lifers are atheists - they simply believe that life begins at conception. This is something of a judgement call. Aborition is a nasty subject that rational, logical people can disagree on . There are solid arguments all the way around. Saying that you have to keep religion out of it is not going to help and isn't possible for religious people.

Very good points in this post(sorry to chop it up). Just like how not all of the anti-abortion people are religious, there are people who are pro-choice and are religious. I can't understand them, but it's true.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Also, similar to what danoff did, I am in the process of writing an essay concerning my views of American foreign policy. It should be finished by tomorrow.

It took a little longer than expected, but I was finally able to "finish" the essay. It is still a work in progress -- so any new information, corrections, questions or feedback will be appreciated.

Remember, the essay contains my views of American foreign policy. So what's contained in the essay is all my opinion (except for the factual information that is provided ). Rather than to try to fit it all in one post, I've decided to upload various copies of the essay (depending on the file type you are able to view). They are in .wps (MS Works), .doc (MS Word), .txt (any text editor can read it), and .rtf (Rich Text Format).

 

[PS]

You got the "my opinion" part wrong. Great job, certainly some effort in there.

 

[ledhed]

Well written. But your conclusions about Iraq fly in the face of known facts about the causes and the influence that led to the war in Iraq. Its about oil partialy because everything in that region is about oil and the rights or access to it. BUT when you look at the root cause for every action that the US takes, one of the first things that is discussed is ; " what effect if any will this have on the economy or trade of the US ? " . One of the things. not everything. The fight against communism WAS a fight against tyranny and also a fight to keep our influence and so our rights to free trade with the countrys not in the communist sphere of influence. But in case you have not noticed even the communist would trade with the capitalist world when they had to. Stalin in fact was HITLERS best customer despite the fact that they were the worst of enemys. If you want to use an example of war to protect free trade you can go back to the war of 1812. If you want an example of war to seize OIL you only have to go back to Saddams invasion of Kuwait. The best example of Imperialism ( neo or otherwise ) would be found in the history of the British empire. I would have said Rome but they used war to make money by the act of war alone and used the lands they conquered to perpetuate their ability for war.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Ok MrktMkr1986 I'm going too read your essay I've downloaded it, my g/f is in the shower, and when she comes out we're going to watch "desperate housewifes" at ten, so it might be a while before I actually get to read it properly.

I'll sneak a quick look now, ledhed seems to think it was well written so I doubt if there is anything in there that will make me want to post straight away with a WTF are you serious!?! With any luck, it might make me see something from a different perspective...which is always good.

Prepare for a critical appraisal later, maybe tomorrow

 

[PS]

I suggest you just edit that post as opposed to adding another one.

 

[Danoff]

MkrtMkr,

You’ve obviously put a lot of work into that essay – but it bounces all over the place. It’s hard to get your conclusions from the background. You jump from some parts of history to very different parts and draw parallels in situations that are wholly different. I have some issues with a few of the things you put forth.

The only logical reason for targeting Iraq (though probably not the main reason) can be explained in one word: oil.

You offer very little to support this. You don’t talk about what you think the “main” reason is. The way you put it, I’d think you were of the opinion that we should be in Iraq for oil! Do you think that’s the right reason for us to go in? Here’s your justification…

. Iraq is estimated to have 115 billion barrels of oil. With current crude oil prices on the NYMEX hovering around $47.00 per barrel, that means that Iraq’s oil supply is worth approximately $5,405,000,000,000 or 5.4 trillion dollars. That’s about 50% of the gross domestic product in the United States. Before the invasion in Iraq in 2003, not a single drop of the oil belonged to the United States -- the oil was all state-owned as mentioned earlier -- until now.

This paragraph borders on dishonest – but I think it isn’t intentional dishonesty. I think you’re being dishonest with yourself – that you’ve tricked yourself.

It makes no sense to compare the “worth” of Iraq’s “estimated” oil reserves against the GDP of the US. Why compare those numbers? Can we consume that much oil in a year? Can we tap that much oil in a decade? Would the Iraqis decide to sell 100% of their oil to the US? At what cost would they sell it to us? Wouldn’t that cost affect the pseudo-profit number you post? What was the cost to secure the oil for the Iraqis? Wouldn’t those reserves suddenly being available on the market drive the price of oil down thereby devaluing Iraq’s reserves? Would Americans simply use more oil if it were available thereby keeping the amount of money we’re spending on oil constant? Would Americans use less oil if it were not available thereby keeping the amount of money we’re spending on oil constant? How does any of what you proposed in this paragraph make any solid sense at all?

You say, “Before the invasion in Iraq in 2003, not a single drop of the oil belonged to the United States -- the oil was all state-owned as mentioned earlier -- until now.” There are two ways to read this sentence (which may have been on purpose). Either the oil belongs to the US now, or the oil is now not state owned. If you meant the former then you’re wrong. If you meant the latter then the former is rendered meaningless. If you imply the former but mean the latter then you can construct a factually correct statement that is misleading.

… more on the US = imperialist claim later.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

I suggest you just edit that post as opposed to adding another one.

Public, I don't think my 3 post a day average is in any danger of spamming up these boards And since your profile says you post 35 times a day, that's just a little bit cheeky.

MkrtMkr1986

First off, unlike a lot of people, it's obvious you've bothered to look into the subject before you talk about it.

There are some inaccuracies and some conjecture that is misleading. Danoff has already picked up on your implication about US not owning any oil in the region "until now"

I don't know where you are going with the third world country bit, you might want to take India off the list as they are now a nuclear power and currently the fifth largest economy! Above Germany and the United Kingdom, not bad for a former colony.
So I can't agree on your point about once colonised nations will always be disadvantaged. The other countries mentioned, in particular Mexico and Brazil, have notoriously corrupt governments, and I feel that this has more to do with their poverty, than any previous colony. Money raised through taxes is rarely put back into the country to improve education or infrastructure, a bit like Iraq, where Saddam lived in luxury and his people live in fear and abject poverty.

On a side note, I've just noticed that the US is no longer the largest economy! The European union is now, on 2004 est by a mere 200 billion.

they tried to say that Iraq was developing nuclear bombs and other WMDs and that the US needed to protect itself and the Middle East. The problem with that is the UN inspection teams were unable to find any such weapons.

This quote is misleading, are you referring to the recent post 2000 searches or in general. The UN did find evidence of a nuclear program, and a huge quantity of chemical and biological weapons.

including the massacre of the Kurds -- despite the fact that the Pentagon’s own study proved that the gassing was actually committed by the Iranians (New York Times, 24 January 2003).

What massacre do you mean, there are plenty to choose from. The most recent being at the end of the Gulf war when the Kurds rose up to rebel against Saddam after he was kicked out of Kuwait, only to be slaughtered by Helicopter gunships and nerve agents.
Over the years he has attacked towns like Qala Diza and Halabja. In Halabja 1988 he killed 5000 civilians, 75% women and children.
I searched nytimes.com for the article you mentioned, but I could not find it. All the evidence suggests that it was Iraqi airforce jets.

You go quite far back into Iraq's history, of course you are aware that Saddam came to power in 1979. Although Pre Saddam Iraq has not been a nice place for a long time.

February 1977 Beginning of mass deportations to Iran of Iraqi Shi'a, confiscation of their property and "disappearance" of sons. Estimated that by early 80's, 200,000 Iraqis are deported to Iran and stripped of nationality and property.

1978-79 The regime eliminates an estimated 7,000 Iraqi Communists.

Just to remind you how Saddam took complete control...There is still film footage of this...it is shocking!
July 15-August 8, 1979 In order to consolidate his power, Saddam embarks on a purge, reminiscent of Stalin, in which party members are accused of being involved in a Syrian plot to place Iraq under Syrian hegemony and remove Iraq's leadership. By the end of the purge, hundreds of top ranking Ba'thists and army officers are executed, including five members of the RCC.

Overall the essay is good, I'm not sure what level you are writing for, if it is degree level, then you should avoid phrases like

Bush and his admin gave a bunch of different reasons to go to war.

You could change that for, "The Administration, under George Bush, provided several reasons to go to war"...bunch is a bit slack

A better reference system would help, or direct links, as I wasn't able to check out the stories you quoted.

There is no conclusion at the end, other than the inferred US wants to own oil. Oil is a factor, but I see it as the US securing the oil in Iraq so that is available to the world.
It is a valuable resource and of no use to anyone when it is pumped into the sea or burnt.
Also I don't agree with the idea of the US wanting to be colonial, (lets face it who could stop them ) but they choose not to.
Globalisation in terms of spreading business ideas and franchises, to help out local economy ( and obviously profit at the same time) is not that scary. I am a cynic, but I can't see the harm in free enterprise.

Is one countries desire to have global supremacy in the market place so bad, every country wants to be significant in the world market, and I'm sure most would like to be number one. Surely that's healthy competition.

Good work, and I did read it all, I might read it again sometime, just to make sure I didn't miss anything, but I think it needs a re-write

Edit: forgot to mention the Anfal campaign!

1987-1988 Saddam launches the Anfal campaign against the Kurds, in which some 180,000 "disappear." 4,000 villages are razed. Depopulation of large areas of eastern Kurdistan.

 

[PS]

Public, I don't think my 3 post a day average is in any danger of spamming up these boards And since your profile says you post 35 times a day, that's just a little bit cheeky.

I just meant that it seemed like a somewhat useless post. I'm trying to get out of useless posts. As for the 35 a day...well...a lot of stuff was happening that I was confirming/clearing up, and not to mention the fact that it didn't register for one day (wierdness), so it would have been ...17.5 a day. Which is still a lot, but...still. And not to mention a lot of it was in the music forum lol.

I'm starting to think that the general public doesn't enough of a say in the matters of Government. But then all that would lead to is ignorant voters/citizens making their decision upon one side of a story or by a bias/misinformed reason.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Well written.

Thank you.

But your conclusions about Iraq fly in the face of known facts about the causes and the influence that led to the war in Iraq. Its about oil partialy because everything in that region is about oil and the rights or access to it. BUT when you look at the root cause for every action that the US takes, one of the first things that is discussed is ; " what effect if any will this have on the economy or trade of the US ? " . One of the things. not everything. The fight against communism WAS a fight against tyranny and also a fight to keep our influence and so our rights to free trade with the countrys not in the communist sphere of influence. But in case you have not noticed even the communist would trade with the capitalist world when they had to.

This is true. But if that was the case, why would we go through all the trouble of trying to eliminate Communism?

Stalin in fact was HITLERS best customer despite the fact that they were the worst of enemys. If you want to use an example of war to protect free trade you can go back to the war of 1812. If you want an example of war to seize OIL you only have to go back to Saddams invasion of Kuwait. The best example of Imperialism ( neo or otherwise ) would be found in the history of the British empire. I would have said Rome but they used war to make money by the act of war alone and used the lands they conquered to perpetuate their ability for war.

True. Although the British empire is the best example of imperialism, I just wanted to try to prove the fact that US foreign policy is in some ways imperialistic.

Again, thank you for reading it!

 

[MrktMkr1986]

You got the "my opinion" part wrong. Great job, certainly some effort in there.

Thank you. Are there any specific points that you wanted to bring up about the essay? Questions, comments?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

MkrtMkr,

You’ve obviously put a lot of work into that essay –

Thank you.

but it bounces all over the place. It’s hard to get your conclusions from the background. You jump from some parts of history to very different parts and draw parallels in situations that are wholly different.

That was intentional.

I have some issues with a few of the things you put forth.

You offer very little to support this. You don’t talk about what you think the “main” reason is. The way you put it, I’d think you were of the opinion that we should be in Iraq for oil! Do you think that’s the right reason for us to go in?

No, that is not my opinion. I simply stated that the only logical reason to enter Iraq (not the main reason, or the most important reason, or the right reason), is oil. Many people choose to ignore this fact and I wanted to make it known.

Here’s your justification…

This paragraph borders on dishonest – but I think it isn’t intentional dishonesty. I think you’re being dishonest with yourself – that you’ve tricked yourself.

I don't believe so. According to the Energy Information Administration, Iraq is estimated to have 115 billion barrels of oil. Though, I'm not one to fully trust everything the government says, I didn't bother to check any other resources for this information. Then, I went to this website in order to figure out the price of crude oil per barrel. From there, I multiplied the two numbers to get an estimated figure of how much the oil would be worth assuming all of it were extracted. Not that that is ever going to happen, but the point I was trying to make is this:

Though the United States produces about half of the oil that it consumes, the whole point to capitalism is not just "surviving" on what you have -- it's further expansion.

It makes no sense to compare the “worth” of Iraq’s “estimated” oil reserves against the GDP of the US. Why compare those numbers? Can we consume that much oil in a year? Can we tap that much oil in a decade? Would the Iraqis decide to sell 100% of their oil to the US? At what cost would they sell it to us? Wouldn’t that cost affect the pseudo-profit number you post? What was the cost to secure the oil for the Iraqis? Wouldn’t those reserves suddenly being available on the market drive the price of oil down thereby devaluing Iraq’s reserves? Would Americans simply use more oil if it were available thereby keeping the amount of money we’re spending on oil constant? Would Americans use less oil if it were not available thereby keeping the amount of money we’re spending on oil constant? How does any of what you proposed in this paragraph make any solid sense at all?

As far as me mentioning the GDP, it was not my intention to make a comparison. I simply stated what I believed to be fact based on the information that I found. Of course we cannot consume that much oil in a single year -- or even in a decade. As far as the Iraqis selling 100% of their oil to the US -- it is entirely possible.

You brought up a good point though concerning the devaluation of Iraq's oil supply assuming it were to be suddenly sold on the market. From the other questions you asked, I cannot give you an answer based on the information in the paragraph -- but again, that was not the point I was trying to make. I was simply trying to prove that in a capitalist society, more is better.

You say, “Before the invasion in Iraq in 2003, not a single drop of the oil belonged to the United States -- the oil was all state-owned as mentioned earlier -- until now.” There are two ways to read this sentence (which may have been on purpose). Either the oil belongs to the US now, or the oil is now not state owned. If you meant the former then you’re wrong. If you meant the latter then the former is rendered meaningless. If you imply the former but mean the latter then you can construct a factually correct statement that is misleading.

It was not my intent to mislead. Though, I can see what you mean about the double meaning, that was not my original intent. I wanted to say the oil is no longer state owned, and that it is basically "up for grabs" -- not that it belongs solely to the United States.

… more on the US = imperialist claim later.

OK.

 

[Ten]

Let's take Ten (the member, not the number) as an example. He's openly gay

YOU OUTTED ME!!! I&^#T$%I^&#%$!!!!

Jk. ^^

I don't subscribe to any religion myself, but I do give them all the benefit of the doubt. (and by that, I mean that if a supreme creator were indeed discovered, I'd give them a thumbs up and say, "Good guess!")

Marriage is a christian institution. I don't want to be married. I want something like marriage, with just the same benefits and holdings. Not in the eyes of god, in the eyes of the government.

America is a fickle mistress. That's pirate talk for I can't get over how hung up on itself it is.

Sorry, Ten... Couldn't resist a chance to lighten this turgid thread up a little

If it brings a smile to someone's face, I'm glad I could be a part of it. ^^

 

[MrktMkr1986]

MkrtMkr1986

First off, unlike a lot of people, it's obvious you've bothered to look into the subject before you talk about it.

Thank you.

There are some inaccuracies and some conjecture that is misleading. Danoff has already picked up on your implication about US not owning any oil in the region "until now"

As explained eariler, that was not my original intent. I simply wanted to state the fact that the oil is no longer "state owned" and that it is "up for grabs".

I don't know where you are going with the third world country bit, you might want to take India off the list as they are now a nuclear power and currently the fifth largest economy! Above Germany and the United Kingdom, not bad for a former colony.

I see your point. However, as a counterpoint, it is important to note that the GDP per capita is only $2,900. The United States is about $37,800, the UK about $27,700 and Germany $27,600. So from these facts, one can conclude that the people in India have a significantly lower standard of living than the US and the other countries you mentioned.

So I can't agree on your point about once colonised nations will always be disadvantaged. The other countries mentioned, in particular Mexico and Brazil, have notoriously corrupt governments, and I feel that this has more to do with their poverty, than any previous colony.

Here, I am going to have to disagree. Brazil has the largest foreign debt of any other country in the world -- about $215 billion or almost 60% of their GDP. In order to pay off the debts to the World Bank/IMF, the country has no choice but to privatize farms etc. (leaving landowner with no work etc...), reduce government subsidies for health and education (making medicine and school more expensive), and more resources are used up. So essentially, the country has to cut government spending in order to pay off their debts -- and the fact that they have corrupt governments. The point I was trying to make though is that capitalism (expansion) is what drives countries to take over smaller "weaker" countries -- not that they are poor because of the colonies.

Money raised through taxes is rarely put back into the country to improve education or infrastructure, a bit like Iraq, where Saddam lived in luxury and his people live in fear and abject poverty.

I totally agree with you. This is one reason why I think we are in Iraq (as mentioned in the essay).

On a side note, I've just noticed that the US is no longer the largest economy! The European union is now, on 2004 est by a mere 200 billion.

I thought the European Union was a collection of countries, not a single entity?

This quote is misleading, are you referring to the recent post 2000 searches or in general. The UN did find evidence of a nuclear program, and a huge quantity of chemical and biological weapons.

Cheimcal and biological weapons that were created by the United States I might add, but that's a different story. I was referring to the post 2000 searches.

What massacre do you mean, there are plenty to choose from. The most recent being at the end of the Gulf war when the Kurds rose up to rebel against Saddam after he was kicked out of Kuwait, only to be slaughtered by Helicopter gunships and nerve agents.
Over the years he has attacked towns like Qala Diza and Halabja. In Halabja 1988 he killed 5000 civilians, 75% women and children.
I searched nytimes.com for the article you mentioned, but I could not find it. All the evidence suggests that it was Iraqi airforce jets.

You are correct -- I was mistaken... I did a bit more research and found this link. It confirms what you said -- I will be editing that part of the essay.

You go quite far back into Iraq's history, of course you are aware that Saddam came to power in 1979. Although Pre Saddam Iraq has not been a nice place for a long time.

Exactly.

February 1977 Beginning of mass deportations to Iran of Iraqi Shi'a, confiscation of their property and "disappearance" of sons. Estimated that by early 80's, 200,000 Iraqis are deported to Iran and stripped of nationality and property.

1978-79 The regime eliminates an estimated 7,000 Iraqi Communists.

Just to remind you how Saddam took complete control...There is still film footage of this...it is shocking!
July 15-August 8, 1979 In order to consolidate his power, Saddam embarks on a purge, reminiscent of Stalin, in which party members are accused of being involved in a Syrian plot to place Iraq under Syrian hegemony and remove Iraq's leadership. By the end of the purge, hundreds of top ranking Ba'thists and army officers are executed, including five members of the RCC.

I will be sure to (somehow) include this information into the essay as it proves another one of my points.

Overall the essay is good, I'm not sure what level you are writing for, if it is degree level, then you should avoid phrases like

You could change that for, "The Administration, under George Bush, provided several reasons to go to war"...bunch is a bit slack

I wanted to keep the essay as informal (bordering on conversational) as possible. Thank you for the suggestion, though. It is very much appreciated.

A better reference system would help, or direct links, as I wasn't able to check out the stories you quoted.

No problem. Again, the essay is a work in progress. I just wanted to get some feedback/information that way I can correct possible mistakes (like the one you caught above) and incorporate new ideas that way I can properly express my opinions. I will definitely be adding links and a bibliography (or "works cited" page) is currently being developed.

There is no conclusion at the end, other than the inferred US wants to own oil.

That was intentional.

Oil is a factor, but I see it as the US securing the oil in Iraq so that is available to the world.

That's debatable. Sharing isn't exactly a capitalist principle -- socialist, maybe, but not capitalist -- which is one of the points I was trying to make in the essay.

It is a valuable resource and of no use to anyone when it is pumped into the sea or burnt.
Also I don't agree with the idea of the US wanting to be colonial, (lets face it who could stop them ) but they choose not to.
Globalisation in terms of spreading business ideas and franchises, to help out local economy ( and obviously profit at the same time) is not that scary. I am a cynic, but I can't see the harm in free enterprise.

I agree with you 100%! The reason is because what you just said:

Globalisation in terms of spreading business ideas and franchises, to help out local economy ( and obviously profit at the same time)

is the exact definition of neo-imperialism -- yet another point I was trying to make in the essay.

Is one countries desire to have global supremacy in the market place so bad, every country wants to be significant in the world market, and I'm sure most would like to be number one. Surely that's healthy competition.

I agree. I am not against capitalism in any way, shape, or form. I just wanted to make it clear that, in my opinion that is part of the reason why we are in Iraq.

Good work, and I did read it all, I might read it again sometime, just to make sure I didn't miss anything, but I think it needs a re-write

Thank you! I will definitely be re-writting it -- several times actually.

Edit: forgot to mention the Anfal campaign!

1987-1988 Saddam launches the Anfal campaign against the Kurds, in which some 180,000 "disappear." 4,000 villages are razed. Depopulation of large areas of eastern Kurdistan.

I will somehow find a way to incorporate (pun intended ) that bit of information in the essay.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

I thought the European Union was a collection of countries, not a single entity?

Just as the United States is a collection of states, the European Union is a collection of countries that have adopted the Euro as a single currency to produce a powerful capitalist force...ooooh
Maybe the UK should join the Euro now, or maybe not..I think we'll wait until sterling is weaker, it's too strong at the moment compared to Europe.

The EU is now recognized by the CIA world fact book ( a good source of GDP info ) as a trading entity.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Just as the United States is a collection of states, the European Union is a collection of countries that have adopted the Euro as a single currency to produce a powerful capitalist force...ooooh
Maybe the UK should join the Euro now, or maybe not..I think we'll wait until sterling is weaker, it's too strong at the moment compared to Europe.

The EU is now recognized by the CIA world fact book ( a good source of GDP info ) as a trading entity.

Thank you for the clarification. 👍 I think the UK should stay out of the EU -- and I don't forsee any immediate decline in the value of the pound. Thanks for the link too!

 

[Danoff]

MrktMkr,

First of all, thanks for not getting upset with me. I was concerned that you’d take my last post too personally and you didn’t. I have to commend you for helping keep this discussion civil.

• South Africa - largest gold producing country - colonized by the Dutch and later the British (1642-1961)
• Mexico - largest silver producing country - colonized by the Spaniards (1521-1821)
• India - largest sugar producing country - colonized by the British (1619-1947); the French, Dutch, and Portuguese colonized India as well…
• Brazil - largest tobacco and coffee producing country - colonized by the Portuguese (1500-1822)
• Ivory Coast - largest cocoa producing country - colonized by France (1460s [est.]- 1960)
• Chile - largest copper producing country - colonized by Spain (1541-1818)
• Australia - largest bauxite producing country - colonized by British (1788-1986)

So your point is that colonies don’t do well for themselves? This is not a revelation, this is obvious. America wasn’t headed for anything great as a colony. We had to create our own government and take control of our own economy before we could develop a strong economy.

If a colony is set up to gather natural resources for the mother country, then the colony is not going to become prosperous by its natural resources, the mother country will.

The whole point to colonialism/imperialism is to further capitalist expansion -- which leads me to my next point.

…to further capitalist expansion. Was it the Dutch, Spanish, British, or French who were capitalist in your examples above? I know you weren’t claiming that they were, but you haven’t established that capitalist nations attempt to amass territory; you’ve shown that non-capitalist nations attempt to amass territory. So you talk about “capitalist expansion” without establishing that it exists.

Neo-imperialism differs from traditional imperialism/colonialism in that the “weaker” countries are allowed to remain sovereign, while the neo-imperialist power retains control of the bulk of the colony’s resources. The United States was one of the first countries to practice this, most notably in Cuba. After having taken Cuba away from Spain (Spanish-American War, 1898), on May 20th, 1902, Cuba was given its “formal” independence from the United States. And though the Cubans had their own flag, currency, and government, major foreign policy decisions remained with the US, as did the island’s valuable resources such as tobacco and sugar. To this day, the United States still occupies a portion of Cuba (Guantanamo Bay).

You’re right. Cuba is a major boost to the American economy. I’m glad we went pseudo imperialist on their asses in order to secure their sugar and tobacco. Cuba does not support your thesis.

…perhaps we did what we did in Cuba in the interest of national defense???? Again, a weak economic argument and complete lack of mention to a strong security argument.

). I want to make it clear, though, that the United States is not the only country with a neo-imperialistic foreign policy

At this point, you haven’t established that the US has a neo-imperialistic foreign policy.

The United States wanted to stop the spread of Communism (or any left-wing faction for that matter) not because Communism/Socialism is “evil”, but because it would hinder capitalist expansion.

Nice, no evidence there either. Perhaps we wanted to stop the spread of communism because it was anti-freedom and we were concerned that eventually it would take us over as well??? Isn’t that obvious? You’re not giving sound economic reasons why the cold war was economic in nature.

I believe the central theme of this war is the domination of global capitalism.

What? Let me quote your supporting evidence.

The only logical reason for targeting Iraq (though probably not the main reason) can be explained in one word: oil. Iraq is estimated to have 115 billion barrels of oil. With current crude oil prices on the NYMEX hovering around $47.00 per barrel, that means that Iraq’s oil supply is worth approximately $5,405,000,000,000 or 5.4 trillion dollars. That’s about 50% of the gross domestic product in the United States. Before the invasion in Iraq in 2003, not a single drop of the oil belonged to the United States -- the oil was all state-owned as mentioned earlier -- until now.

I already torpedoed these numbers as meaningless. I claim still that your economic argument is weak at best and you’re ignoring the security argument. You failed to even mention that a democratic Iraq might deter terrorism in the region – terrorism, the thing President Bush is most concerned about, the thing he talks about constantly, the major perception changing event of his first term, the thing had a much more negative impact to the American economy than oil prices.

 

[ZAGGIN]

it makes me laugh at the way americans talk about freedom. anyone would believe that the rest of us poor guys are all suffering under evil dictatorships or something like that. democracy wasnt created by america, its existed for thousands of years, and many nations have been practising it for far longer than the nation of america has existed on this earth. so why do americans bang on about it so much? im free, id say that i am just as free as any american, infact id say more so. maybe if you need to be told your free, then maybe your not.

dandoff, continuing your analogy, you presented america the good, then you presented america the bad. just like the film starring clint eastwood, i would like to finish with america the ugly... read on.

with the fall of the former soviet union, america has been bumbling around trying to find a new role (enemy) within the world since it old adversary finally succumbed to the march of democracy. with 'dubyah' at the helm, america is keen to spread liberty and freedom throughout the world and paint its self as the moral compass for the rest of the world. it would of been a noble concept if americas hands wasnt stained with the blood of millions of innocent civillians.

(hears the stuff you never hear americans talk about, unless they're bragging)

* slavery - who can forget the freedom or liberty there.
* nigh-on genocidal slaughter of native american indians.
* segregation - again, who can forget the freedom or liberty there.

* to this day, america is the only nation on earth to use atomic weapons on another nation. and if it wasnt bad enough slaughtering 250,000 innocent civillians in hiroshima, they dropped a second bomb on nagasdiaki and killed another 250,000 innocent civillians. why didnt they attack a civillian target? and how come america wasnt charged with war crimes?

* between the korean and vietnam war, almost 4 million asians were slaughtered, some may of been hostile, but most were innocent. in vietnam, america used chemical weapons, but was not held to account for it. why not? considering how much 'dubyah' banged on about WMD and iraq its kinda stinks of hypocracy dont you think?

panama - who can forget the us marines bombarding general noreaga with rock music - that potent symbol of freedom.

* afghanistan (twice) - first time they trained the guys that bombed the twin towers, then they bombed the guys that bombed the twin towers. go figure!

* iraq (twice) - anything daddy can do, i can do better.

i just made this list off the top of my head, if i thought more about it and did a bit of delving on the internet, i bet i could come up with a few more home truths. the bottom line is, america has a shocking history of war, mayhem, invasion, and oppression.

does anyone remember the list 'dubyah' drew up? you know, the one about the supposed 'axis of evil'? well i wonder if any of the nations listed have a rap sheet like that? i biet if you looked at their 'axis of evil', i bet america is top of every single one of them.

just a quick straw poll. judging by past exploits, should america be included on the 'axis of evil'?

before the 'short-sighted' americans flame me down, id just like to say this. im not anti-american, infact im not anti anything. the only thing i hate is IGNORANCE. i say live and let live. the world is a beautiful place, we should all learn to live with one another.

 

[Ten]

before the 'short-sighted' americans flame me down, id just like to say this. im not anti-american, infact im not anti anything. the only thing i hate is IGNORANCE. i say live and let live. the world is a beautiful place, we should all learn to live with one another.

The world needs more people like you.

 

[Sage]

* slavery - who can forget the freedom or liberty there.
* nigh-on genocidal slaughter of native american indians.
* segregation - again, who can forget the freedom or liberty there.

We're talking about the present now. Right now America does none of that – we learned that it's wrong, and stopped it. Gedit?

* to this day, america is the only nation on earth to use atomic weapons on another nation. and if it wasnt bad enough slaughtering 250,000 innocent civillians in hiroshima, they dropped a second bomb on nagasdiaki and killed another 250,000 innocent civillians. why didnt they attack a civillian target? and how come america wasnt charged with war crimes?

Any history teacher can tell you that it was either let 1 million U.S. soldiers and 3-4 million Japanese soldiers die, or kill 250,000. Frankly, I think attacking a more suburban/rural area would have been better, but it was still a small amount compared to the 5 million that could've died.

[I don't know a great deal of history from the last few decades, which is why I'm skipping a few questions.]

* afghanistan (twice) - first time they trained the guys that bombed the twin towers, then they bombed the guys that bombed the twin towers. go figure!

Because they're back stabbers. Is that our fault?

* iraq (twice) - anything daddy can do, i can do better.

Oh, great way to support your facts – that's what we call ad hominem (I'm assuming you know what that is, but if not, look it up). Probably the biggest fallacy in argumentative writing, and you walked right into it.

before the 'short-sighted' americans flame me down, id just like to say this. im not anti-american, infact im not anti anything. the only thing i hate is IGNORANCE. i say live and let live. the world is a beautiful place, we should all learn to live with one another.

I hate ignorance too, which is why I've responded to some of these statements. You might have some decent points, but you need to support them better, instead of loosely tying a string of common America-bashing ideas that 1) Usually have little relevance to today (Germany was once a horrible country, but now it doesn't cause any trouble), and 2) Have inherent flaws stemming from invalid logical reasoning (and, as I mentioned, ad hominem, which bugs me to no end).

 

[Danoff]

the only thing i hate is IGNORANCE. i say live and let live. the world is a beautiful place, we should all learn to live with one another.

This is funny. Does anyone else see the humor in this?

before the 'short-sighted' americans flame me down, id just like to say this. im not anti-american, infact im not anti anything.

The man who stands for nothing right...

* slavery - who can forget the freedom or liberty there.

Yea, we paid for that with 600,000 lives. I'd say we've vindicated ourselves.

* nigh-on genocidal slaughter of native american indians.

Yup, that was a bad idea. They have special privilages in our nation today.

* segregation - again, who can forget the freedom or liberty there.

This isn't exactly genocide. But racism is bad, too bad we haven't learned not to be. Now we're racist against white people... go figure.

i just made this list off the top of my head

I can tell.

between the korean and vietnam war, almost 4 million asians were slaughtered, some may of been hostile, but most were innocent.

4 million? Most were innocent? Give me sources.

it makes me laugh at the way americans talk about freedom. anyone would believe that the rest of us poor guys are all suffering under evil dictatorships or something like that. democracy wasnt created by america, its existed for thousands of years, and many nations have been practising it for far longer than the nation of america has existed on this earth.

Yea, and we're having some issues with our democracy right now that you very much. Freedom comes in the form of capitalsim as well, which is pretty much ours.

im free, id say that i am just as free as any american, infact id say more so.

... yea. I don't think so. Maybe (and that's a stretch) socially but not economically.

maybe if you need to be told your free, then maybe your not.

Who need to what now? I need to be told I'm free? I didn't know that. If I do then maybe I'm not? What? How's that again?

 

[a6m5]

it makes me laugh at the way americans talk about freedom. anyone would believe that the rest of us poor guys are all suffering under evil dictatorships or something like that. democracy wasnt created by america, its existed for thousands of years, and many nations have been practising it for far longer than the nation of america has existed on this earth. so why do americans bang on about it so much? im free, id say that i am just as free as any american, infact id say more so. maybe if you need to be told your free, then maybe your not.

dandoff, continuing your analogy, you presented america the good, then you presented america the bad. just like the film starring clint eastwood, i would like to finish with america the ugly... read on.

with the fall of the former soviet union, america has been bumbling around trying to find a new role (enemy) within the world since it old adversary finally succumbed to the march of democracy. with 'dubyah' at the helm, america is keen to spread liberty and freedom throughout the world and paint its self as the moral compass for the rest of the world. it would of been a noble concept if americas hands wasnt stained with the blood of millions of innocent civillians.

(hears the stuff you never hear americans talk about, unless they're bragging)

* slavery - who can forget the freedom or liberty there.
* nigh-on genocidal slaughter of native american indians.
* segregation - again, who can forget the freedom or liberty there.

* to this day, america is the only nation on earth to use atomic weapons on another nation. and if it wasnt bad enough slaughtering 250,000 innocent civillians in hiroshima, they dropped a second bomb on nagasdiaki and killed another 250,000 innocent civillians. why didnt they attack a civillian target? and how come america wasnt charged with war crimes?

* between the korean and vietnam war, almost 4 million asians were slaughtered, some may of been hostile, but most were innocent. in vietnam, america used chemical weapons, but was not held to account for it. why not? considering how much 'dubyah' banged on about WMD and iraq its kinda stinks of hypocracy dont you think?

panama - who can forget the us marines bombarding general noreaga with rock music - that potent symbol of freedom.

* afghanistan (twice) - first time they trained the guys that bombed the twin towers, then they bombed the guys that bombed the twin towers. go figure!

* iraq (twice) - anything daddy can do, i can do better.

i just made this list off the top of my head, if i thought more about it and did a bit of delving on the internet, i bet i could come up with a few more home truths. the bottom line is, america has a shocking history of war, mayhem, invasion, and oppression.

does anyone remember the list 'dubyah' drew up? you know, the one about the supposed 'axis of evil'? well i wonder if any of the nations listed have a rap sheet like that? i biet if you looked at their 'axis of evil', i bet america is top of every single one of them.

just a quick straw poll. judging by past exploits, should america be included on the 'axis of evil'?

before the 'short-sighted' americans flame me down, id just like to say this. im not anti-american, infact im not anti anything. the only thing i hate is IGNORANCE. i say live and let live. the world is a beautiful place, we should all learn to live with one another.

I agree with a lot of things you said, especially the parts about the American Indians. To me, "Thanksgiving" holiday is a big joke. An holiday honoring the help of the people you massacred and took the land(pretty much the entire country) from.

Admittedly, there are some Americans who blindly believe that U.S. is some sort of perfect country, and therefore it can't do any wrong. While I don't worship USA, I still love this country. I feel that along with the bad(there are/were many IMO), you also have to remember the good that the U.S. has done. If it wasn't for the U.S., we could've been under Nazi/Imperial Japanese, Soviet or Chinese Communist rule. Now, that would've been really bad.

* to this day, america is the only nation on earth to use atomic weapons on another nation. and if it wasnt bad enough slaughtering 250,000 innocent civillians in hiroshima, they dropped a second bomb on nagasdiaki and killed another 250,000 innocent civillians. why didnt they attack a civillian target? and how come america wasnt charged with war crimes?

I don't know how accurate your figures are, but atomic bombs are only part of what happened. U.S. Army repeatedly killed civilians with their fighters and bomber planes. They were not charged with war crimes, because they won the war. It's not an opinion, it's an fact. Also, I don't see anything wrong with it(I'm Japanese). It was an ugly war and things got out of hand(both sides, worse on Germany/Japan side). At least, we can all agree that we're glad it's done, and we learned our lesson.

P.S. I can't believe the U.S. dropped the atomic bombs on innocent civilians, but if the Japanese had more time, they most likely would have done the same to U.S. They were pretty close to coming up with an atomic bomb of their own.

 

[Duke]

* slavery - who can forget the freedom or liberty there.

Yea, we paid for that with 600,000 lives. I'd say we've vindicated ourselves.

I'd also like to point out that not only did we fight (and win) a war against ourselves in order to end the practice almost 150 years ago, but did you know: the vast majority of African slaves were sold into slavery by their fellow African blacks. It was common practice for hundreds of years - still is, in some places - for tribe wars to end with the victors enslaving the losers for their own use or for sale.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I'd also like to point out that not only did we fight (and win) a war against ourselves in order to end the practice almost 150 years ago, but did you know: the vast majority of African slaves were sold into slavery by their fellow African blacks. It was common practice for hundreds of years - still is, in some places - for tribe wars to end with the victors enslaving the losers for their own use or for sale.

As much as I hate to have to admit to that (being Black ), neon's right. Many African slaves were sold into slavery by other Blacks. Liberals ( ) try to make it appear as if it was the US's fault slavery existed -- when it was it was countries like Spain, England, France, Holland, Portugal, Sweden, and even Denmark who were involved with the slave trade (during that time period).

TO ZAGGIN: In your rant about slavery being bragged about in the US ( ) you neglected to mention these people:

William Lloyd Garrison - Published The Liberator newspaper
Harriet Beecher Stowe - Author of Uncle Tom's Cabin
Frederick Douglass - Nation's most powerful anti-slavery speaker, a former slave
Harriet Tubman - Helped 350 slaves escape from the South, became known as a "conductor" on the "Underground Railroad".

*off the top of my head*

... and many more...

 

[Ten]

HOLY CRAP! YOU'RE BLACK???!!!

jk!

Oh man...I seriously need to leave this thread or come up with some actual feedback...

 

[///M-Spec]

The world needs more people like you.

I would say more accurately, the world needs more people who act as he describes.


M

 

[Ten]

Indeed. I enjoy the idea that someone can look outside the political or social status of their own country and look at the bigger picture without bias. I say this because I'm american, and I agree with him wholely.

Also, I'm not anti-anything. Though I am jumping ship to canada in the near future. But I have my own reasons for that - both personal and political.

 

[///M-Spec]

Indeed. I enjoy the idea that someone can look outside the political or social status of their own country and look at the bigger picture without bias. I say this because I'm american, and I agree with him wholely.

Also, I'm not anti-anything. Though I am jumping ship to canada in the near future. But I have my own reasons for that - both personal and political.

It's an over-simplification and won't take long before the Opinions Regulars pick it apart intellectually and morally. It's already started to happen.

Being willing to hold your own country and society to a set of moral standards is important, but I find most critics go completely overboard. It also happens much more often when it's another country they're critisizing. This is no different. Of course, I created this thread for the sole purpose of this sort of thing, so who am I to complain?


M