Why the US has to be and should be "imperialist" - Page 5

Bugs ****ing Bunny · January 9, 2003, 15:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Sava:

compare the demagraphics of the poorest 10% of Americans and you will see they are roughly proportionate by population (well except American Indians who are disproportionately impoverished but that's another story)

thanks

Now can anyone spot the flaw in this devastating argument?

I may be wrong, but I think he's now old enough to have the vote. Jesus H ****ing Christ almighty.

Al B. Sure! · January 9, 2003, 16:59

Sava:

Excuse me? You yourself said that the rich people were all white... how the hell are you POSSIBLY NOT racist against white people then?!

Furthermore, I actually covered myself when I said that the top one percent being of a specific ethnic group has little bearing on the country. So rich jews (a MINORITY group) don't affect the country detrimentally... so I'm a semite apparently, while you, furious at a MAJORITY group composing the top percent, are somehow not anti-caucasion...

Mad Viking:

Being an 'Arab-American', I have had no such experiences... they are blown out of proportion...

and to those who said I am a racist... how the hell is that possible when I am ATTACKING your European racial states?!

Persia, Rome, Ottoman Empire, United States...

thanks

orange · January 9, 2003, 17:02

Arab American my fucking arse.

You're half Lebanese. You've long since assimilated.

orange · January 9, 2003, 17:05

a state is not racist just because it is racially based. That is the most glaring of many fundamental flaws to your 'argument'.

Al B. Sure! · January 9, 2003, 17:12

Orange:

You think a racially-based country that becomes imperialistic would give a damn about the foreign 'vassals'?

orange · January 9, 2003, 17:15

you think an Imperialistic United States gives a damn about the foreign vassals? We care about furnishing our interests. We may have some decent goals, but the main reasoning is to further our own interests.

It has less to do with how your nation breaks down ethnically than how democratic it is, in my opinion, but any imperialistic country is that way for its own gain - not humanity's.

LDiCesare · January 9, 2003, 17:31

What's your definition of a racial state in the first place?
In France, anyone born in France can be French (you may have to choose your nationality when you come of age, which I think is silly), exactly as children of a French. You can also become French through other means, but that probably takes more time than becoming citizen of the U.S.
That is not racial, that is ground-based, as the US.
Furthermore, the US have an history of quotas against immigration, which don't really plead in favour of a non-racial state.
Also, the U.S. has laws that makes its citizens unequal. I may be wrong but I think you don't have to be of American nationality in order to be eligible for presidency, but have to have been born on the U.S. soil. This is a discrimination between citizens of the same state which, IMO, confines to racism (though I understand it is a leftover of the time when all Americans were Brittish one year before so they had to coin out a law which would make the difference with the English).

orange · January 9, 2003, 17:38

I believe there are exceptions to that rule, LDiCesare, for example an American baby born abroad, but otherwise well stated

Donegeal · January 9, 2003, 18:31

Everybody is gunning for #1. So #1 does what is can to stay on top.

It just so happens that #1 (production and militarily speaking) is the US. So it goes around trying to make sure it stays there.

Would any other country not do the same if it was in the same position?

If the answer is "no", then that is why they aren't at the top.

Trifna · January 9, 2003, 19:49

Other countries, if they have the same kind of mass medias and all, will do same since it's all the same humans. A political system where the worst elements are going to the top is a problem. But it doesn't make it correct

It has to be stopped.

NOW,
to anyone who'd think USA's government is on the right path, look to this:

It is before 1991 that Saddam did his worst atrocities. They were (among other things) bio-chemical weapons attacks done against Iran's civilian population and Iraq's dissident populations (Kurds). It is at that time that USA was supporting Iraq, and they would even answer to journalists saying that Irak was using such methods such things by official communiqués saying that it is a non sense, Saddam "is our ally and friend" (quoted from Bush, father). I do not remember exactly, but I think the sources for such weapons were furnished by USA's government (to do medical research or soemthing I guess, officially. It's what is done with Israël).

Okay, so let's stick just to this little element without losing ourselves on debates that are wider and longer. It's coming from Noam Chomsky in a conference (and in his books, certainly). Noam Chomsky is one of the leading American dissident (Massachusett's Institute of Technology teacher).

Graag · January 9, 2003, 20:00

Quote:

I do not remember exactly, but I think the sources for such weapons were furnished by USA's government

Hey don't forget us! While Saddam was gassing, shooting and generally kicking the crap out of anyone he didn't like, the UK was a solid supporter. We sold him a shitload of weapons. Oh, sorry I mean farming supplies, that Iraq magically converted into guns, planes, bombs and chemical weapons.

As an interesting aside, I read somewhere that the US (CIA), while still good buddies with Iraq gave Saddam 'the go-ahead' to attack the Kurds, in order to have an excuse to start the gulf war. If anyone cares I'll find a link.

Skanky Burns · January 9, 2003, 20:14

Dumb and dumber, now an Apolyton thread.

DinoDoc · January 9, 2003, 20:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Graag
As an interesting aside, I read somewhere that the US (CIA), while still good buddies with Iraq gave Saddam 'the go-ahead' to attack the Kurds, in order to have an excuse to start the gulf war. If anyone cares I'll find a link.

Considering the fact that the two incidents are spaced quite far apart in time, yes I would like to see a link.

Lonestar · January 9, 2003, 20:23

As would I

Trifna · January 10, 2003, 13:32

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

This is one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard. The price of oil is set by international markets and particularly influence by the futures and related commodities markets in NYMEX.

Talk of war didn't start because oil prices were up, oil prices went up based on market expectations of possible supply disruptions and risk as a result of war. The best way to floor the price of oil isn't to invade Iraq, it's the opposite - just end the UN sanctions and bring Iraqi oil into the marketplace.

But wars, Middle East countries and many factors have some great influence.

Spiffor · January 11, 2003, 08:46

While the Amercian law and texts may go in AS' direction (indeed, you merely have to be born on American ground to become one), there is a huge difference between legal texts and reality.
Last century, France was imperialistic, and justified itself with the very same reasons AS is saying now : formally, France wanted to "share its great civilization to the backwards people of Africa" (read Jules Ferry's speeches on these issues, it's even stupider than AS' assumptions).

A mere 2 centuries ago, France wasn't only made of French people, far from it : Britannians (no idea on how you say this in English), Basques and Corsicans mostly didn't speak any French word, and there were tons of local languages. Ethnically, France is a mix between Latin, Celtic, and Germanic ethnicities (with a domination of Latin blood). If AS says France is only made of French now, it's because of 150 years of agressive cultural assimilation.
Ethnically, France remains quite varied if you consider Alsacians, Basques, Britannians and Corsicans not to be ethnically French (some do). Also, we have a big Arab minority, and have been an immigration country for one century, with many peole of Italian / Spanish / Portuguese / Subsaharian African ascent.

I am not defending France as being more "socially advanced" than a country like Germany which always built itself on bloodright rather than groundright (Many people in Germany are Turks even if their family lives in Germany for several generations). In fact, France may be behind : racist movements like Le Pen's one get 15% regularily. Our Blacks and Arabs, while being full-fledged citizens, get constantly discrimanted by the population and by the police. The rift between whites (whatever if they come from Italy or from Britanny in the first place) and the non-whites is increasing. That's not what I call the most advanced society.
This is deep rooted : during its imperialism, France was supposed to integrate all conquered countries (like AS expects the US to do), but all conquered people weren't equal : in Algeria, Jews became full-fledged French citizens, while Muslims always remained 2nd class citizens. In Subsaharian Africa, there was a permanent and obvious racism, even if officially, black people were to become French in the future. Same for Asia.

Sorry for the long hiatus about France, but French "multinational" ideals are very close to American ones, and very opposite to German ones. With this example I know well, I simply wanted to show that whatever the law, an imperial state will remain racist, and will keep plundering resources of conquered countries.
There are some reasons why the US are currently the least horrible imparialists around, but AS' point is laughable.

Az · January 11, 2003, 09:01

Quote:

Arab American my ****ing arse.

You're half Lebanese. You've long since assimilated.

what's the difference? why does it matter?

Jaakko · January 11, 2003, 10:52

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
I guess you've never heard of MMA

Do the Brazilians still kick everyone's ass?

Agathon · January 11, 2003, 19:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Skanky Burns

Dumb and dumber, now an Apolyton thread.

Ockers!

Just because you are evil, smell, have sex with farm animals AND CHEAT AT RUGBY!!!!

And what's all this talk about the Massachusetts Municipal Association?

Lord Merciless · January 11, 2003, 22:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Trifna
NOW,
to anyone who'd think USA's government is on the right path, look to this:

It is before 1991 that Saddam did his worst atrocities. They were (among other things) bio-chemical weapons attacks done against Iran's civilian population and Iraq's dissident populations (Kurds). It is at that time that USA was supporting Iraq, and they would even answer to journalists saying that Irak was using such methods such things by official communiqués saying that it is a non sense, Saddam "is our ally and friend" (quoted from Bush, father). I do not remember exactly, but I think the sources for such weapons were furnished by USA's government (to do medical research or soemthing I guess, officially. It's what is done with Israël).

Saddam was a better choice than Ayatollah Khomeini. As long as he gased Ayatollah's minions, he was our 'friend'.

Trifna · January 12, 2003, 13:37

Lord Merciless, you seem to know more about Ayatollah Khomeini, would you make me the pleasure to say a little mroe about him and what concerns him?

Ted Striker · January 12, 2003, 15:20

US is like a role model. Whether or not we choose to be the superpower, the fact remains, we are the sole superpower.

The people of the United States are all having a very deep dialog about what our role is supposed to be, and it's still evolving as we speak.

The situation in the world right now has never been tried before.

Ted Striker · January 12, 2003, 15:54

There is a really cool dialog program called "By the People," that is hosted by Jim Lehrer where all of these role discussions take place between the people of the US and foreign policy experts and leaders. I think this is one of the most responsible and valuable television programs to ever be aired. I highly recommend it, the discussion is well thought out:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/about.html

Lord Merciless · January 12, 2003, 16:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Trifna
Lord Merciless, you seem to know more about Ayatollah Khomeini, would you make me the pleasure to say a little mroe about him and what concerns him?

The fact that he instated a fundamentalist islamic state and kept our embassy personnels hostage was more than enough.

Also, you can reason with a gangster(Saddam), but fundamentalist zealots(Khomeini, OBL) are impervious to logic and reason.

Trifna · January 12, 2003, 16:43

There wasn't only Khomeini...
It's like the situation now. In the people that are proposed for the post-Saddam, democratic ones aren't listed alot... but that guy responsible for bloody Kurb repressing is in this! Non-sense, but he may give better oil conditions.... But I never said Khomeni was a better solution than Saddam of course.

About USA vs Middle East, I'll answer you this, Lord (its a message I posted earlier):

"NOW,
to anyone who'd think USA's government is on the right path, look to this:

It is before 1991 that Saddam did his worst atrocities. They were (among other things) bio-chemical weapons attacks done against Iran's civilian population and Iraq's dissident populations (Kurds). It is at that time that USA was supporting Iraq, and they would even answer to journalists saying that Irak was using such methods such things by official communiqués saying that it is a non sense, Saddam "is our ally and friend" (quoted from Bush, father). I do not remember exactly, but I think the sources for such weapons were furnished by USA's government (to do medical research or soemthing I guess, officially. It's what is done with Israël).

Okay, so let's stick just to this little element without losing ourselves on debates that are wider and longer. It's coming from Noam Chomsky in a conference (and in his books, certainly). Noam Chomsky is one of the leading American dissident (Massachusett's Institute of Technology teacher)."

zulu9812 · January 12, 2003, 19:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Speer
The United States is, without a doubt, the most socially advanced society in the world...

Rodney King

zulu9812 · January 12, 2003, 19:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
The United States is a lousy place to live because it has:

(1) Slaves: well, illegal workers aren't technically slaves, but they don't enjoy any of the rights of citizens and are basically tolerated as an underclass. Forced labourers in prison however are slaves - there is just no other way of looking at it.

Technically, since they're not citizens, they don't have rights. In fact, in times of necessary crisis, the government, wanting to be seen to be doing something, make an example of their illegal worker population. Don't believe me? It happened in the months after 9/11. And why are the illegal immigrants tolerated? Cheap labour for the businessess, and the business men rule America. Why do businessmen rule America? Because in the US, you have to buy airtime, which means the richest parties get the most coverage. In Britain, party political broadcast time is allocated based on a party's no. of seats. But since only the rich parties get airtime, other parties don't get a look-in. The status quo in America is shocking, but it will never change. It will never change because the status quo suits the businessmen and the businessmen back whichever politician will help keep it that way.

zulu9812 · January 12, 2003, 19:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Japanese act imperialistically in Korea... Koreans become second-class citizens of the Japanese Empire with no hope of being accepted into the ethnic state that is Japan.

US acts imperialistically in Korea. Koreans will be equals to Americans and be accepted into a multi-national state that has a history of accepting people of various ethnicities

What's your scientific basis for this? How do you know what will happen?

zulu9812 · January 12, 2003, 19:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Speer
rich white people? more like rich jews...

but what the hell does 1% being rich matter? They have little effect on the mainstream of American society

Actually, the 1% rule America. For the reason outlined above. Politics in the US MUST become less reliant on financial backing. Only then could you even begin to consider that it is the people who rule (i.e. a democracy), and not the 1%. The 1% also own the TV stations,a nd thus control the news. I'll tell you a story. Imemdiately after 9/11, news stations showed footage of unnamed arabs celebrating in the streets of an unnamed arab nation. The TV stations forgot to mention the context. The context was that that footage was from 10 years ago. This was exposed after media students in the UK declared that they had seen the same footage as part of their course. Who edits the news? The 1%...

Ted Striker · January 12, 2003, 19:40

Quote:

Originally posted by zulu9812

Technically, since they're not citizens, they don't have rights. In fact, in times of necessary crisis, the government, wanting to be seen to be doing something, make an example of their illegal worker population. Don't believe me? It happened in the months after 9/11. And why are the illegal immigrants tolerated? Cheap labour for the businessess, and the business men rule America.

I agree with this. We do it up old school Dutch Mercantilism style.

Quote:

Why do businessmen rule America? Because in the US, you have to buy airtime, which means the richest parties get the most coverage. In Britain, party political broadcast time is allocated based on a party's no. of seats. But since only the rich parties get airtime, other parties don't get a look-in. The status quo in America is shocking, but it will never change. It will never change because the status quo suits the businessmen and the businessmen back whichever politician will help keep it that way.

This part is pretty exaggerated though.