[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Perhaps, either way I don't mind. At least he's polite. Then he could be a sort of a typical average US swing voter - a notion I find very interesting because I don't recall to have discussed with such a being before. He was on Kerry's side when Kerry had better polls than Bush and when Kerry began losing ground he began thinking about maybe Bush wasn't that bad and then when Bush had better polls than Kerry he read one article posted by Zimphire and FLIP.

Of course it is entirely possible that one article can affect one so much but it didn't really mention the Iraq campaign which aberdeenwriter suddenly fully supports (maybe he always did??) but hey.

Originally posted by Taliesin:
I think he was all along on the neo-con-side, but used this forum to stage a "from left to right"-flipping, in order to persuade some left-ones to do the same, all for the beloved Bush-campaign. Ah, what a blessing the election-year is.

Taliesin

Neo-con, Abram Shulsky admits, "truth is not the goal" of intelligence operations, but "victory."

Mwhaaa haaa haaaaa! <diabolical laugh>

But seriously folks...

When, in the course of political events, it becomes necessary to flip-flop, a decent respect for the opinion of MacNN-kind suggest one should declare the causes which impel them to the flip-flop.

Here's a timeline of my political thoughts and feelings since November 2000 to this year.

11/07/00 - Voted Gore. (Previous votes went to Dems, Repubs, and Perot.) Viewed results with a shrug. New President deserves our support.

9/11/01 - WAR! President deserves our support. Employed by a Clear Channel radio station.

2/23/04 - Howard Stern fined by FCC after "King Of All Media" withdrew support for Bush Administration. Smacked of censorship, right-wing manipulation of 1st Amendment and possible collusion by Clear Channel when CC removed Stern show from 6 markets. OUTRAGE at Bush Administration.

6/27/04 - "Fahrenheit 9/11." Convinced of need to remove President Bush from office.

8/16/04 - 1st MacNN post.

9/8/04 - Discovered PNAC website.

9/11/04 - Nominated for first "Golden Troll"

9/12/04 - Awarded "Golden Troll" for a different post.

9/14/04 - After reading rightweb site (critical of Bush Administration) describing the New American Century plan, I was excited by the boldness of the plan but wondered if it could work and what the dangers of such a plan would be. Still for Kerry.

9/18/04 - Started thread, (Why do THEY hate US?) to further explore radical Islamic terrorism. Personal belief was that a more enlightened foreign policy and smart, strong leadership was the key to defusing terrorism. Had to search my soul to find my one non-negotiable issue: PEACE. Saw the possibility of peace through NAC plan as well as Kerry plan. Still leaning toward Kerry.

9/19/04 - Read article posted by Zimphire; "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology" by Lee Harris and was blown away! I was disabused of my previous belief about the cause and solution for Islamic terrorism. FLIP-FLOP COMPLETED! I do not support many of the President's policies and yet I believe he will best deliver peace through global dominance. Because of his strong plans to make US & the world safe for democracy and his aggressive WOT, I now support BUSH.

9/20/04 - Awarded a coveted, "SMACKDOWN!!" for posted reply to MacNN member questioning my switch to Bush.

I hope this helps explain my conversion.

[DBursey]

I'm compelled to ask ... are you currently on any sort of 'meds'?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by DBursey:
I'm compelled to ask ... are you currently on any sort of 'meds'?

Stimulating ones in particular

No offense, you're appear ah a little avid at time is all

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
I believe he will best deliver peace through global dominance.

I hope this helps explain my conversion.

Peace through global dominance...
My head hurts.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by DBursey:
I'm compelled to ask ... are you currently on any sort of 'meds'?

Yeah, maybe you could get em for me cheap???

[voodoo]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
Peace through global dominance...
My head hurts.

I know I know. It is the one thing that cannot be achieved. Ever.

It is like a movieplot. There is this one thing that allows everything else make sense in the plot but in reality it'd never happen or could never happen. Unfortunately this isn't a movie. :/

[idjeff]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
My head hurts.

Well, I think I see your problem...stop hitting you head against that brick wall

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
Peace through global dominance...
My head hurts.

I know. But AKcrab, think of it this way.

You live on a street where kids run around wild and getting into trouble. You do what you can to be a good neighbor but also stay safely out of all the nonsense.

Then, one day the kids egg your house. What if you had the ability to go into their homes, set these kids straight and make their parents do a better job of parenting.

Then, you could go back, not only to the life where you had stayed out of all the nonsense, but one where you can start taking evening strolls through the neighborhood and having pleasant relationships with your neighbors and even go bowling with them and the like.

THAT'S WHAT GLOBAL DOMINANCE MEANS TO ME.

(hopefully, that's what it will mean to Bush & Co.)

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Stimulating ones in particular

No offense, you're appear ah a little avid at time is all

yo? moi?? ME???

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
I do not support many of the President's policies and yet I believe he will best deliver peace through global dominance. Because of his strong plans to make US & the world safe for democracy and his aggressive WOT, I now support BUSH.

It is also called "megalomania".

Another form of dictature...

[Spliffdaddy]

It's called "being the President of the USA".

His job is *not* to make non-USA-residents happy.

We leave that up to the governments of those other nations. Who have done a horrific job, from what I can tell.

Apparently, only Americans are happy with their country.

Perhaps that's why we're so reluctant to let foreigners (aka; unhappy people) tell us what we need to do.

Lead by example - especially if you seek to make us happier.

[ebuddy]

Troll, you've addressed none of my points. You didn't address the exchange of money nor corraboration from multiple credible sources. You failed to address the fact that Kerry worked on the intelligence committee and supported our actions. You failed to address the fact that Clinton mandated we stay the course on Saddam. You failed to address the Clinton administration's connections between Saddam and terrorism. You offered up a challenge, I apparently gave you too much to chew on so in your typical way, you stick and move in debate. You count dead bodies to argure isolationism while deluding yourself with false notions of what kind of world community we live in. You look at an obstacle and give up before even trying. You wanted a SECOND resolution for action in Iraq. There was already a threat made that if Saddam did not comply with UN WEAPON INSPECTORS (nice try on your spin of this event however) the UN would use military might. Nope. You want to warn the criminal AGAIN. You fail to see the big picture, you fail to make a compelling argument regarding what you are for. You have found peace in opposition and as such weaken the resolve to attain peace for anyone else for fear it will disrupt your comfort. You say I'm motivated by fear. You missed the boat by a mile on that one my friend. I go forward with courage. Your insistence that the sky is falling and it's all Bush's fault wreaks of ignorance and fear. The result of ignorance is fear and the fruit of fear is inaction. Inaction is your idea, not mine.

The more I debate this the more I'm realizing that the opposition to our actions in Iraq are racist. They weren't crying out for help? They didn't welcome us? I've seen pictures of my friends in this action being welcomed by Iraqi citizens. You saw the Iraqi people as happy in their own little self-made hell-hole of religious persecution, gender persecution, oppressive labor policy, bus bombings, and mass genocide right? I mean, they are barbarians right and that's their culture- they're used to this sort of thing right? Forgive me for not feeling too badly about disturbing their peace or yours. It's sloppiness was starting to spill into my town and now it's time to do something about it. In big chunks.

[Troll]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Troll, you've addressed none of my points. You didn't address the exchange of money nor corraboration from multiple credible sources. You failed to address the fact that Kerry worked on the intelligence committee and supported our actions. You failed to address the fact that Clinton mandated we stay the course on Saddam. You failed to address the Clinton administration's connections between Saddam and terrorism.

First off, how much time do you think I have? I posted a complete reply to Aberdeenwriter. That's my quota for the day. Second, we have a thread that you guys stopped replying to, on the links between Al Qaeda and terrorism. I've addressed the issues there. I find it tiresome to have to debunk the same rubbish in each thread. It doesn't seem to help anyway because you appear to believe intrinsically that Saddam was helping Al Qaeda! I watched the House of Saud documentary last night. You realise that when Saddam first invaded Kuwait, OBL went to Saudi Arabia and offered to bring his mujahedeen down from Afghanistan to force the infidel out of Kuwait? They showed footage of OBL making the offer. And less than 10 years later, you're telling me that a principled man like OBL has compromised his principles and decided to work with the infidel and the notoriously paranoid Saddam has decided to trust his enemy. Highly unlikely. Some of those unsubstantiated points you made allege a connection with Al Qaeda that I acknowledge but there just is no credible evidence of Iraq giving any kind of support to Al Qaeda. They spoke before OBL went to Afghanistan, before OBL took the opposing side in the first Gulf War and that was it. No help was ever offered or given. Maybe if you transfer that post to the right thread, I'll answer it.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
You offered up a challenge, I apparently gave you too much to chew on so in your typical way, you stick and move in debate.

No, when you start accusing China, Germany, France and Russia of wanting to see Iraqi civilians starve to death, then I simply realise that intelligent debate with you is impossible.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
You count dead bodies to argure isolationism

I'm completely against isolationism. Unilaterally and illegally invading soveriegn nations for no reason other than your own strategic interests is not the opposite of isolationism!! America can get involved in the world without killing people.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
while deluding yourself with false notions of what kind of world community we live in.

I'm not the one who's delusional. I see Muslims and non-Muslims working together and living in harmony all over the world. You seem to think that Islam is intrinsically the problem and that the Islamic-ness of a person gives you a right to kill them because that's the only thing they understand. I'm precis-ing here but that's the effect of your argument that Muslims that resist Western influence and interference can only be dealt with by clubbing.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
You wanted a SECOND resolution for action in Iraq. There was already a threat made that if Saddam did not comply with UN WEAPON INSPECTORS (nice try on your spin of this event however) the UN would use military might. Nope. You want to warn the criminal AGAIN.

It's not a question of what I WANT, it's a question of what is required by rules that have been developed over centuries of civilisation to give the most fair result and to avoid unnecessary death and destruction. A second resolution was a REQUIREMENT. The use of force in Iraq was threatened but it was not authorised and for good cause. There was a process in place already for addressing the threat. One that avoided unnecessary loss of life. Look what happens when you don't follow those rules - you invaded a country and killed 10,000 innocent people and it turns out you were wrong. There were no WMD in Iraq.

You confuse the issues here. Saddam was a criminal because he killed and tortured and maimed thousands of people. He was innocent of the charge made against him though. If you're accused of murder, the judge cannot on the last day say, "You're probably not guilty of murder, but we're sentencing you to death for treason." He would have to charge you with treason first. No one, least of all the US who continued to do business with Iraq after it had supposedly gassed the kurds, thought that Iraq's human rights track record justified intervention. At the time those events happened or when the Sunni uprising was being suppressed (note how the American military reacted back then) I would have thought intervention was justified but no one proposed a UN resolution at the time. Saddam was accused of not destroying his WMD. Before he had a chance to disprove the charge, you invaded and it turns out the charge was false. Now that we have him, by all means, let's charge him for his crimes, but don't pretend those crimes justified the invasion.

As for your accusation that I prefer inaction, not at all. I was all for the action of inspection. I was all for diplomatic action. I was all for supporting local Iraqi dissent. I was all for any number of actions. Not believing in the action of killing innocent people and people who are merely resisting an illegal invasion of their country does not amount to inaction. There are many ways to skin a cat.

My point about fear was related to the War on Terrorism not the War in Iraq. What I accused Aberdeenwriter of was fear of terrorism. That has nothing to do with Iraq. I accused him of falling prey to the fear that Bush and his Admin monger with their cutesy terror barometer and strategic warnings of increased terrorist chatter. Aberdeenwriter admitted that he was frightened to change Presidents. I pointed out that his fear was determining who he votes for. That the terrorists were manipulating the election.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
It's sloppiness was starting to spill into my town and now it's time to do something about it. In big chunks.

There you go, precisely the loose statement that your President makes repeated here. How was Iraqi "sloppiness" spilling into your town? For the record, I was complaining about Saddam's human rights record at a time when Donald Rumsfeld was still shaking Saddam's hand and selling him WMD.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
It's called "being the President of the USA".

His job is *not* to make non-USA-residents happy.

We leave that up to the governments of those other nations. Who have done a horrific job, from what I can tell.

Apparently, only Americans are happy with their country.

Perhaps that's why we're so reluctant to let foreigners (aka; unhappy people) tell us what we need to do.

Lead by example - especially if you seek to make us happier.

aberdeenwriter refers to peace through global dominance by Bush.

That's aberdeenwriter's megalomania. And Bush's as well if that is his plan.

Megalomania: a psychological state characterized by delusions of grandeur.

And I agree that foreigners have no right to tell the USA what they are supposed to do... inside the borders of the USA. Outside, that is none of your business what other countries are doing.

[zen jihad]

"They" do not hate anyone, that's a fallacy perpetrated mostly by the US media, and Government; and it's a narrow-minded, xenophobic view mostly found amongst Americans.

There's a deliberate propoganda machine being put into use just now to portray even the most radical of Muslims as "haters". Such a small-minded view tha takes no circumstances into consideration.

It all boils down to Muslims, and radical Islamic groups wanting nothing to do with foreign interference in their countries, way of life. It;s about making a stance against anti-Muslim sentiments by some Western nations. If you feel they hate you, then why not ask why? Another myth is that Muslims want to destroy the US, it's way of life. Such tripe is peddled on the likes of FOX news every day, but hold no basis on reality, it's just a silly conspiracy theory

What they do want, is for the US to stay out of theor world in the interfering manner that has existed for years. As soon as the US does that, you'll find that the reality is that Muslims just want to be left alone.

[Troll]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
aberdeenwriter refers to peace through global dominance by Bush.

That's aberdeenwriter's megalomania. And Bush's as well if that is his plan.

Megalomania: a psychological state characterized by delusions of grandeur.

And I agree that foreigners have no right to tell the USA what they are supposed to do... inside the borders of the USA. Outside, that is none of your business what other countries are doing.

Peace through global dominance is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard. Was there peace when the British Empire dominated the globe? Let's see, War of Independence, two Anglo-Boer wars (essentially wars on terror), a couple in India, Asia. Heck we even had Britain using biological weapons in Canada. People don't like being dominated. Trying to dominate them breeds violence which is the opposite of peace. Global dominance is one of the root causes of terrorism.

Besides, if the US can't knock over the regime in Iraq and install peace, how the heck do they think they can achieve that globally. Iraq had just come out of years of crippling sanctions, had a government the majority of people hated, was as secular an Arab state as you can get and so far all indications (even the CIA agrees) are that it will not be peaceful for a long time. If it takes 5 years per country to instill peace (which is very optimistic), global dominance will be a long time coming. Do we start counting the American Century from when the Empire has been established or is the Century the period of time it will take to achieve this peace through global dominance?

[ebuddy]

address the fact that just about every Muslim bordering country is in turmoil and strife and has been for decades and maybel I'll believe in some offhand way that Muslims do not seek to influence the legislation of it's neighbors by fear and terrorism. I know why y'all are tired, but it's time to wake up.

[Troll]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
address the fact that just about every Muslim bordering country is in turmoil and strife

What is a "Muslim bordering country".

I'm presuming you've read the thread about France's Muslims obeying French laws that they think are in conflict with Islamic customs.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
"They" do not hate anyone, that's a fallacy perpetrated mostly by the US media, and Government; and it's a narrow-minded, xenophobic view mostly found amongst Americans.

There's a deliberate propoganda machine being put into use just now to portray even the most radical of Muslims as "haters". Such a small-minded view tha takes no circumstances into consideration.

It all boils down to Muslims, and radical Islamic groups wanting nothing to do with foreign interference in their countries, way of life. It;s about making a stance against anti-Muslim sentiments by some Western nations. If you feel they hate you, then why not ask why? Another myth is that Muslims want to destroy the US, it's way of life. Such tripe is peddled on the likes of FOX news every day, but hold no basis on reality, it's just a silly conspiracy theory

What they do want, is for the US to stay out of theor world in the interfering manner that has existed for years. As soon as the US does that, you'll find that the reality is that Muslims just want to be left alone.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Troll:
Peace through global dominance is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard. Was there peace when the British Empire dominated the globe? Let's see, War of Independence, two Anglo-Boer wars (essentially wars on terror), a couple in India, Asia. Heck we even had Britain using biological weapons in Canada. People don't like being dominated. Trying to dominate them breeds violence which is the opposite of peace. Global dominance is one of the root causes of terrorism.

Besides, if the US can't knock over the regime in Iraq and install peace, how the heck do they think they can achieve that globally. Iraq had just come out of years of crippling sanctions, had a government the majority of people hated, was as secular an Arab state as you can get and so far all indications (even the CIA agrees) are that it will not be peaceful for a long time. If it takes 5 years per country to instill peace (which is very optimistic), global dominance will be a long time coming. Do we start counting the American Century from when the Empire has been established or is the Century the period of time it will take to achieve this peace through global dominance?

Exact.



I do not believe in any Global Pax Americana, or coming from any other country...

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
aberdeenwriter refers to peace through global dominance by Bush.

That's aberdeenwriter's megalomania. And Bush's as well if that is his plan.

Megalomania: a psychological state characterized by delusions of grandeur.

And I agree that foreigners have no right to tell the USA what they are supposed to do... inside the borders of the USA. Outside, that is none of your business what other countries are doing.

"Megalomaniac," in a strictly musical sense, is a cool sounding song. I like it. Good strong beat, deliciously dark feel, great video. Well executed. One might assume the song refers to President George W. Bush.

It says the person in question (if they aren't speaking of Bush, I wonder who they are thinking of? Hmm...) is no Jesus, no, he's not even a 'fxxxing Elvis.'

The band has stated the President isn't the subject of their recording so I guess we must take them at their word.

However, you or anyone who believes the President is acting megalomaniacally (boy, that rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? lol)
is misinterpreting the evidence.

You know, now that I think about it, instead of a song by an alternative rock band made up of 20 - something year olds with a perspective on life skewed by inexperience, sudden fame, and the stereotypical "sex and drugs," I think a better way of viewing the President's actions is by thinking of the film, High Noon.

George Bush is just a man, doing a job.

A man of peace and principle trying to do a tough, dirty job while being abandoned or attacked from all sides without thanks from those who might benefit most from his efforts.

He has no delusions of grandeur. The only delusion he might have suffered was that people would act sensibly and intelligently, in their own best interests.

And some have.

But, unfortunately, not everyone.

Don't fret, though.

The bad guys have attacked; and Sheriff Will Kane, er President George Bush is leading the counter-attack. He's taking care of the threat.

And President Bush will continue his efforts to bring peace and tranquility to this troubled, dangerous town, er, I mean, world until the job is done.

He's doing what no one else is interested in doing. Something no one else is brave enough, strong enough or principled enough to do.

That, angaq, is called leadership. Not megalomaniac-shix.

And when the job is done and people like you, who have worked against his courageous efforts to advance the interests of freedom and prosperity, both here and abroad, are finally able to understand the enormity of the gift he's given you, you can offer him your feeble thanks.

In 2008, as he leaves Washington to return home with his dear Laura by his side, the job completed or well in hand, I can imagine him throwing his badge to the ground at your feet and saying, 'I just did my job.'

You said, "...foreigners have no right to tell the USA what they are supposed to do... inside the borders of the USA. Outside, that is none of your business what other countries are doing."

The USA was content to respect national sovereignty and leave the dysfunctional countries alone to work out their issues until
9/11 when it became clear that WE could not depend on the UN to do it's job.

And that the (monkey) business going on in too many of these countries was either impotently allowing attacks like this or actually helping foment al Qaeda (your friends???) attacks on US and around the world.

9/11 made it America's business!

President Bush is just doing for you and the other peace loving peoples of the world what they wouldn't or couldn't do for themselves.

Hmmm, now that I think about the Incubus line, "you're no Jesus," please tell me what did Jesus do for mankind?

What we couldn't do for ourselves.

But that's right. Incubus wasn't referring to President Bush, were they?

Megalomania my ass!

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
The bad guys have attacked; and Sheriff Will Kane, er President George Bush is leading the counter-attack. He's taking care of the threat.

The threat is not, and never was, in Iraq. Look where the hijackers came from.

And President Bush will continue his efforts to bring peace and tranquility to this troubled, dangerous town, er, I mean, world until the job is done.

Glad you're so sure his plan of attack (pun intended) is working. I'm not convinced.

The USA was content to respect national sovereignty and leave the dysfunctional countries alone to work out their issues until 9/11 when it became clear that WE could not depend on the UN to do it's job.

How did Sadaam assume power again? We didn't have anything to do with that, did we? To claim that the United States "leaves dysfunctional countries alone" is absurd.

Did the UN have something to do with 9/11?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by AKcrab:


Did the UN have something to do with 9/11?

Yes. They have always been terror-enablers, allowing terrorist countries to be members, inviting/allowing terrorists to speak. Disregarding/ignoring islamic terrorism.

Islamic terrorism has flourished under the acceptance of the UN. I guess they're busy spending 99% of their time on the jooooos.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Yes. They have always been terror-enablers, allowing terrorist countries to be members, inviting/allowing terrorists to speak. Disregarding/ignoring islamic terrorism.

Islamic terrorism has flourished under the acceptance of the UN. I guess they're busy spending 99% of their time on the jooooos.

Wouldn't go that far, but they're lack of resistance to terrorism or dictatorship is remarkable. They're only weapon is to get everyone together to get some hazelnut coffee and say that they're threatening sanctions for genocide.
Imagine if the League of Nations had not failed and acted like the modern UN.

1941:

Hello, this is Kofi. I am with the League of Nations. I need to talk with Hitler.
"Hitler here�zeig heil!�what can we do for you?
Well, it is 1943, and it's almost been 3 years since you've invaded Poland and started your movement on the eastern front in Barbarossa. Now we hear at the League view your actions in the past years as, well, hostile.
"Ja."
Now we here at the League are considering some form of action to deal with your invasions.
"Nein! I've been good. I promise!"
It's not up to me. If it is agreed upon, then we will impose sanctions in 6 months. I am just warning you that this might pass.
"Fricken!"

~2 years later~

Hitler!
"Oh sh�te!"
Yes, a new measure is coming before the LoN tomorrow�
"Sanctions?!"
Yes.
"Oh, no" [puts phone down to laugh with Himmler]
This measure will get passed. I assure you that we're tired of not doing anything. The sanctions will keep you from�
"I'll comply!" [laughter]
You better. What have you been doing these past years?
"�Making Dairy Queens." [Himmler rips a star of david in half while Hitler laughs his ass off.]
I love Dairy Queen! What's your favorite flavor?
"Uh�" [Hitler screams to Himmler; makes him look for something to come up with.]
Well�?
"Uh�Zykl�er, Auch�damn! Okay, it is called Madagascar Alps."
There are alps in Madagascar?
"Yes!"
Okay. Wanna come over and eat some pie?
"Suuuure�"
This one works.
This one too.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
"Megalomaniac," in a strictly musical sense, is a cool sounding song. I like it. Good strong beat, deliciously dark feel, great video. Well executed. One might assume the song refers to President George W. Bush.

It says the person in question (if they aren't speaking of Bush, I wonder who they are thinking of? Hmm...) is no Jesus, no, he's not even a 'fxxxing Elvis.'

The band has stated the President isn't the subject of their recording so I guess we must take them at their word.

However, you or anyone who believes the President is acting megalomaniacally (boy, that rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? lol)
is misinterpreting the evidence.


Megalomania my ass!

Megalomaniac: a pathological egotist

If life is self-referential for you, well, good luck!



And by the way, he is a megalomaniac because of the way you described him.

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:

I do not support many of the President's policies and yet I believe he will best deliver peace through global dominance. Because of his strong plans to make US & the world safe for democracy and his aggressive WOT, I now support BUSH.

If you still can't see through your own language, well, your song is lost as dead leaves in the wind: they look good but last not from failure to signify anything.

deliver peace through global dominance

is quite an oxymoron...

I suppose your partner is peaceful because you dominate that person?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
"They" do not hate anyone, that's a fallacy perpetrated mostly by the US media, and Government; and it's a narrow-minded, xenophobic view mostly found amongst Americans.

There's a deliberate propoganda machine being put into use just now to portray even the most radical of Muslims as "haters". Such a small-minded view tha takes no circumstances into consideration.

It all boils down to Muslims, and radical Islamic groups wanting nothing to do with foreign interference in their countries, way of life. It;s about making a stance against anti-Muslim sentiments by some Western nations. If you feel they hate you, then why not ask why? Another myth is that Muslims want to destroy the US, it's way of life. Such tripe is peddled on the likes of FOX news every day, but hold no basis on reality, it's just a silly conspiracy theory

What they do want, is for the US to stay out of theor world in the interfering manner that has existed for years. As soon as the US does that, you'll find that the reality is that Muslims just want to be left alone.

The fact is there is a core group of Islamic terrorists, 10,000 or 40,000 throughout the world who want to fight and are willing to die to kill the "Great Satanists."

There's another larger group of Muslims, several millions, who identify with bin Laden and his narrow and bizarre bastardization of the religion and who provide support and succor to the core group of terrorists.

This is the jihadist network and they are in most every country.

A much larger group is that which completes the total worldwide Islamic population.

Yes, they may want to be left alone, but the way I see it, is you and the larger, peaceful Islamic population have a problem.

If you don't control this mad dog terrorist faction of yours that gives your religion a bad name and brings attacks onto your peoples, you are going to have to sit back, bite your tongue and let George Bush do it.

To do nothing is to give it your tacit support.

Being able to live your lives in peace is no longer possible, thanks to bin Laden. The sooner the terrorist crap stops, the sooner EVERYONE will be able to enjoy lives of peace and the pursuit of happiness.

The USA would like nothing better than to leave the world alone but 9/11 made that impossible.

Crap rolls downhill.

Like it or not, it's YOUR problem now.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:

To do nothing is to give it your tacit support.

Well, I am glad you said so.

We can therefore blame you for all other terrorists attacks that you ignored, include most genocides of the 20th Century in which your guys stayed home, as well as all those catastrophes that lead to plundering... Can we?

So when you are home watching TV, we can then blame you for whatever is reported, right?

OMG the list is so loooooong!

And yet, you're looking for Bush to create peace through global dominance... What a false start!

By the way, how about the 10 000 innocent vicitims of Iraq?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
The threat is not, and never was, in Iraq. Look where the hijackers came from.

Glad you're so sure his plan of attack (pun intended) is working. I'm not convinced.

How did Sadaam assume power again? We didn't have anything to do with that, did we? To claim that the United States "leaves dysfunctional countries alone" is absurd.

Did the UN have something to do with 9/11? [/B]

Sorry to disagree, but here's some things I just read which says there WAS significant reason to fear Iraq and substantiates my previous assertion there IS evidence of significant ties between al Qaeda and Saddam.

http://www.nationalreview.com/script...0406010821.asp

"THE ATTA CONNECTION
Of the utmost urgency are indications, continuing to emerge, that Iraq forged operational ties with al Qaeda, sought to conduct terrorist attacks against the United States, and may in fact have had a hand in the 9/11 attacks. The focus of this evidence is the Iraqi Intelligence Service and its apparent ties with not one but at least three leaders of the suicide hijacking plot: Mohammed Atta, Khalid al-Midhar, and Nawaf al-Hazmi."

There's much more info about those ties between 9/11 and Iraq at the national review page, than just the above paragraph.

Talking about the US support given Saddam in his fight against the Iranians, when the US was looking for a friend in the region, isn't a fair argument.

Look at the time from when Bush took office until after 9/11 when we were forced to protect ourselves. We were minding our own business.

The UN didn't have anything to do with 9/11 but THAT'S THE POINT...who will protect the world from terrorism if the UN doesn't do it?

Who is going to protect the US if the US doesn't do it?

Why DOESN'T the UN bear some responsibility for these attacks? That the UN condemns the US is almost like they are saying they tacitly support the terrorist crap.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Well, I am glad you said so.

We can therefore blame you for all other terrorists attacks that you ignored, include most genocides of the 20th Century in which your guys stayed home, as well as all those catastrophes that lead to plundering... Can we?

So when you are home watching TV, we can then blame you for whatever is reported, right?

OMG the list is so loooooong!

And yet, you're looking for Bush to create peace through global dominance... What a false start!

By the way, how about the 10 000 innocent vicitims of Iraq?

What about the dozens of examples of the US stepping in when no one else would or could or did?

What about when US lives were lost saving Muslims from ethnic cleansing?

Short memories and ingratitude goes a loooooong way toward making me feel all warm and fuzzy about helping anyone being oppressed in the future.

OMG turn to the UN or FRANCE when you have a famine, earthquake, genocide etc.

Your argument reminds me of that of a spoiled little brat who gets treated better than she deserves in the first place, then when the boyfriend, husband, daddy can't do EVERY SINGLE THING to make her little world perfect she criticizes him for not doing enough!

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Well, I am glad you said so.

We can therefore blame you for all other terrorists attacks that you ignored, include most genocides of the 20th Century in which your guys stayed home, as well as all those catastrophes that lead to plundering... Can we?

So when you are home watching TV, we can then blame you for whatever is reported, right?

OMG the list is so loooooong!

And yet, you're looking for Bush to create peace through global dominance... What a false start!

By the way, how about the 10 000 innocent vicitims of Iraq?

To secure peace you must prepare for war.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Megalomaniac: a pathological egotist

If life is self-referential for you, well, good luck!



And by the way, he is a megalomaniac because of the way you described him.

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:


If you still can't see through your own language, well, your song is lost as dead leaves in the wind: they look good but last not from failure to signify anything.

is quite an oxymoron...

I suppose your partner is peaceful because you dominate that person?

When (if?) you ever have children who are fighting and wrestling in the house and break one of your prized possessions, I want you to think of GEORGE W. BUSH when you restore order to your household.

Then ask yourself, 'Hmmm, did I violate their boundaries by punishing them?" OMG, yes! You totally dominated them...to bring about tranquility!

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
When (if?) you ever have children who are fighting and wrestling in the house and break one of your prized possessions, I want you to think of GEORGE W. BUSH when you restore order to your household.

Your analogies just don't work. You keep comparing terrorists to little kids and the world to a neighborhood. It just doesn't work that way.

Children have not had a lifetime to build up resentment.
Neighborhoods don't have armies.

What I can do in my own house (or even my neighborhood) doesn't compare to what I can do to another sovereign country.

Oh, and I don't want you to forget that a couple of the 9/11 pilots trained in Florida. You would think it would have been easier to train in Iraq, by the way you make it sound.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
It's called "being the President of the USA".

His job is *not* to make non-USA-residents happy.

We leave that up to the governments of those other nations. Who have done a horrific job, from what I can tell.

Apparently, only Americans are happy with their country.

Perhaps that's why we're so reluctant to let foreigners (aka; unhappy people) tell us what we need to do.

Lead by example - especially if you seek to make us happier.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
What about the dozens of examples of the US stepping in when no one else would or could or did?

What about when US lives were lost saving Muslims from ethnic cleansing?

Short memories and ingratitude goes a loooooong way toward making me feel all warm and fuzzy about helping anyone being oppressed in the future.

OMG turn to the UN or FRANCE when you have a famine, earthquake, genocide etc.

Your argument reminds me of that of a spoiled little brat who gets treated better than she deserves in the first place, then when the boyfriend, husband, daddy can't do EVERY SINGLE THING to make her little world perfect she criticizes him for not doing enough!

That hit the nail on the head.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
Your analogies just don't work. You keep comparing terrorists to little kids and the world to a neighborhood. It just doesn't work that way.

Children have not had a lifetime to build up resentment.
Neighborhoods don't have armies.

What I can do in my own house (or even my neighborhood) doesn't compare to what I can do to another sovereign country.

Oh, and I don't want you to forget that a couple of the 9/11 pilots trained in Florida. You would think it would have been easier to train in Iraq, by the way you make it sound.

AKcrab,

You may not like it, but it is the way things are going to have to be. You can thank everyone responsible outside the US for the chaos President Bush has to resolve.

After he resolves the mess and restores tranquility, you can thank the President.

[Troll]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
A man of peace and principle trying to do a tough, dirty job while being abandoned or attacked from all sides without thanks from those who might benefit most from his efforts.

He has no delusions of grandeur. The only delusion he might have suffered was that people would act sensibly and intelligently, in their own best interests.

We were referring to the POLICY of the PNAC as being megalomaniac. The policy of global domination is a clear illusion of grandeur in itself but it's an ever bigger illusion to think it will bring peace. Show me one Empire that the world ever accepted! Wtf Incubus' song has to do with it is a great mystery. Perhaps that was the first time you ever heard the word?

George Bush is a man of peace? Right. George Bush is a War President. Don't you listen? He's as much a man of peace as Milosevic - and I'm not the only one that thinks so (http://www.centrebet.com).

[Troll]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
The fact is there is a core group of Islamic terrorists, 10,000 or 40,000 throughout the world who want to fight and are willing to die to kill the "Great Satanists."

Experts estimate the Iraqi Insurgency to be made up of 100,000 Iraqis - proof incontrovertible that George Bush's policies have CREATED terrorists.

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
If you don't control this mad dog terrorist faction of yours that gives your religion a bad name and brings attacks onto your peoples

How come this works in one direction but not the other? How come you see how their policies can spurn legitimate violence by you, but you can't see how your illegitimate violence can spurn a legitimate response from them? Perhaps we all need to just calm down a bit and stop killing each other? George Bush is not the person to do that and you precisely expressed the problem the West has. Unless they control the mad dog Bush, they are bringing attacks upon themselves. The only way to avert such attacks is to clearly distinguish themseles, which is why they're all spurning their links to the US. That leaves the US more and more isolated and fighting global terrorism is very difficult without such support.

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Being able to live your lives in peace is no longer possible, thanks to bin Laden. The sooner the terrorist crap stops, the sooner EVERYONE will be able to enjoy lives of peace and the pursuit of happiness.

I'm living my life in perfect peace and happiness thank you very much. Bin Laden is the furthest thing from my mind. You may be crapping yourself, and given where you live and the relationship you are choosing to have with other people (notably Muslims), you may almost be justified. But it is not impossible to live peacefully despite Bin Laden's existence. Billions of people are doing it every day!

[Sandbaggins]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
What about the dozens of examples of the US stepping in when no one else would or could or did?

What about when US lives were lost saving Muslims from ethnic cleansing?

Short memories and ingratitude goes a loooooong way toward making me feel all warm and fuzzy about helping anyone being oppressed in the future.

OMG turn to the UN or FRANCE when you have a famine, earthquake, genocide etc.

Your argument reminds me of that of a spoiled little brat who gets treated better than she deserves in the first place, then when the boyfriend, husband, daddy can't do EVERY SINGLE THING to make her little world perfect she criticizes him for not doing enough!

[aberdeenwriter]

Ahhh, if I could only be young and fuzzy brained again.

SIGH!

It's actually pretty simple to understand.

The cops are called when there's a fight going on. They restore peace the easy way or they restore peace the hard way.

But, when someone attacks the Police station, watch out.

Oh, by the way. Check out the Kerry Video thread. I couldn't keep up with all the flip-flops! Seriously.

It looks like you all are going to have an instructive next four years.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by angaq0k:

I suppose your partner is peaceful because you dominate that person?

"She's meek as a lamb and purrs like a kitten after I smack her around with my lead lined mittens!"

[Troll]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Ahhh, if I could only be young and fuzzy brained again.

As opposed to just being fuzzy-brained.

The genocide in Iraq was mostly committed at two crucial stages. One, during the Iranian war. This is when Saddam is alleged to have gassed the Kurds. At that stage, remind me what the "policeman" was doing? Oh, that's right, he was giving the godfather some rather big guns and sending envoys to play lovey-dovey with the godfather. The second time was after the Sunni uprising. Remind me what the "policeman" was doing then? Oh, that's right, he was saying, "I've got your back, go for it man," and then sniggering into his hand. Of course, as godfather's do, he eliminated all of the opposition. After the Sunni uprising had been quashed, Saddam was relatively well-behaved. Less killing, torture and bad behaviour than ever. Did Bush go to the UN and say, "Boys, we have to go and save the Iraqis from the wrath of the monster we created,"? No. Did anyone ever suggest that an invasion of Iraq was required on humanitarian grounds? No. Did the Republicans ever believe in humanitarian interventions? No. When did we first start hearing about the Iraqi people being "liberated"? When WMD didn't turn up. What do the Iraqi people think about liberation? 100,000 of them have put their lives on the line to resist it. Many others sympathise with it. The rest have problems with access to basic services like water, fuel, electricity. Their hospitals don't work, crime is worse than it has ever been, they're being blown up on the streets by the resistance and by American troops. Oh yes, they're thrilled that the cops are in town! And who can blame them - they have peace, they have security, they have freedom. :rollseyes:

You know what Iraq was about. Peace through global domination as you put it. Stop pretending it had anything to do with human rights!

[aberdeenwriter]

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

There are some people who should thank their lucky stars they are included in these ASSUMPTIVE rights.

Otherwise it's questionable any panel of their peers would find them worthy. Or that their actions would prove sufficiently deserving by any measure.

Then they are the first to oppose using any advantage of the system they were lucky enough to enjoy (by way of their progenitors' carnal lust) to secure those same rights for those less fortunate.

FEH!

God Bless America and God Bless Our President, George W. Bush!

[aberdeenwriter]

...And most bizarre is that their good fortune of birth PERMITS their perverse fascination, admiration and advocacy of any system or notorious individual distinctly separate to or directly opposed to the system of government they, themselves, enjoy.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
The USA would like nothing better than to leave the world alone but 9/11 made that impossible.

Actually what makes it impossible for the US to leave the world alone is that the US has a pretty big empire to uphold. Worldwar1 was the deciding element to turn the US into an empire, the ex-empires in Europe led wars while borrowing money from the US, that joyfully lend them money, a lot of money. Between worldwar1 and worldwar2 the US lived quite well from the paybacks from Europe, that were financed through the reparations Germany had to pay for losing worldwar1.

The financial empire of the US was a consequence of worldwar1, the military and cultural empire were the consequence of worldwar2, during which Europe basically destroyed its military and economic potential, with up to 50 million dead people. For half of worldwar2 the US financed all sides of the war, Germany, Italy, France, Britain and the Soviet-Union.

It was not so that the US suddenly developed a stronger army than Europe, that allowed to expand its empire from the american continent to the european continent and to all european colonies. It was the destruction of Europe's military potential in worldwar2, and the consequential dependance on the US' financial capabilities that it gained through ww1, that led to that development of the US overtaking Europe's hegemony, colonies and empires.

Additionaly the victory over Japan and the invention of the atom-bomb, that served as a deterrance to the Soviet-Union not to interfere, allowed the US to also get a foot on Asia.

On top of that the US used the opportunity to install a new world-economy that was/is based on the dollar, and unified the socalled victory-nations China, Soviet-Union, Britain, France in a new version of the organization League of Nations, called United Nations and based it in the US for better control and surveillance.

What about the cultural empire? Well, before the two worldwars, Europe already had a cultural empire thanks to the colonies it had. From the colonies Europe exploited the ressources and transported them to Europe where they were refined and used to produce industrial products that were then delivered back to the colonies to be sold there...
The US overtook that concept and changed it slightly according to Britain's ideas developed between the worldwars, namely to use a local elite to play the local governor for the US, equipped with enough money, weapons and training to control the masses, to keep the market open for western products while securing the flow of the ressources out of the neo-colonies to the west.

That way US-culture and life-style found its way to all the ex-Europe-colonies, but also to the countries that lost worldwar2, like Japan and Germany, that had for example to fulfill a quota of US-movies to be played in cinemas and TV, and also to all other countries that were dependent on US-financial help..

For Europe, that is not bad, considering that the US mainly consist of ex-europeans, and considering that the US is mainly christian, but for the non-european countries the US-culture-empire is oppressive.

If the US would decide to leave the world alone, it would have to give up the military, financial and cultural empire, and that would mean a pretty hard decade(s) to change the US-economy to do without the benifits of an empire.

Taliesin

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Wouldn't go that far, but they're lack of resistance to terrorism or dictatorship is remarkable. They're only weapon is to get everyone together to get some hazelnut coffee and say that they're threatening sanctions for genocide.
Imagine if the League of Nations had not failed and acted like the modern UN.

1941:

Hello, this is Kofi. I am with the League of Nations. I need to talk with Hitler.
"Hitler here�zeig heil!�what can we do for you?
Well, it is 1943, and it's almost been 3 years since you've invaded Poland and started your movement on the eastern front in Barbarossa. Now we hear at the League view your actions in the past years as, well, hostile.
"Ja."
Now we here at the League are considering some form of action to deal with your invasions.
"Nein! I've been good. I promise!"
It's not up to me. If it is agreed upon, then we will impose sanctions in 6 months. I am just warning you that this might pass.
"Fricken!"

~2 years later~

Hitler!
"Oh sh�te!"
Yes, a new measure is coming before the LoN tomorrow�
"Sanctions?!"
Yes.
"Oh, no" [puts phone down to laugh with Himmler]
This measure will get passed. I assure you that we're tired of not doing anything. The sanctions will keep you from�
"I'll comply!" [laughter]
You better. What have you been doing these past years?
"�Making Dairy Queens." [Himmler rips a star of david in half while Hitler laughs his ass off.]
I love Dairy Queen! What's your favorite flavor?
"Uh�" [Hitler screams to Himmler; makes him look for something to come up with.]
Well�?
"Uh�Zykl�er, Auch�damn! Okay, it is called Madagascar Alps."
There are alps in Madagascar?
"Yes!"
Okay. Wanna come over and eat some pie?
"Suuuure�"
This one works.
This one too.

FRIGGIN HILARIOUS!!!!!

For those who didn't catch it, Zyklon B was the poison gas used in the death camps.

[Troll]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
God Bless America and God Bless Our President, George W. Bush!

Yeah, he's gonna need all the help he can get! Problems is I think God has a quite a lot of people appealing to him at the moment and most of them are asking for the opposite of what Georgie Porgie wants.

You really are fuzzy-brained though. You have a real fruit salad of issues. Let me try to help you separate the pieces again.

1) The US is not interested in propagating human rights all over the world. Propagation of human rights is a justification for its actions not a motivation. The difference is crucial. The USA justifies its intervention in Iraq on humanitarian grounds but the human rights situation in Iraq was not the motivation for invading Iraq.

2) Why is this important? Because the American people never had a debate about what should be done about a poor human rights situation in Iraq. The world never had that debate. The invasion of Iraq was never presented to them in those terms. It was presented to them as the use of force to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. No resolution was ever passed at the UN condemning the human rights situation in Iraq and putting them on notice to change it. I'm not aware of any SC resolution on the human rights situation whatsoever. Quite possibly if the debate had occurred, the American people and the world in general would have felt that the use of force was not justified as a philanthropic measure (freeing Iraqis).

As it is, it's difficult to say whether the American people thought the use of force was justified to address the WMD concern. Certainly the rest of the world thought it was not. Judging by global reticence to get involved in Haiti and Sudan and Zimbabwe and other places, I would imagine it would have taken some convincing to persuade all relevant parties to invade on humanitarian grounds. Not the least the American people.

3) Part of the debate that would have happened had this been an issue would have centred around timing. Why now? Human rights have been bad for decades in Iraq. As at 2002, the US's major problem is terrorism. Can't Iraqi human rights wait until we have a handle on terrorism? We have OBL and Al Qaeda on the run in Afghanistan but the job isn't finished. Is the state of Iraqi human rights a mission we need to achieve at the expense of the WOT or should we not be diverting troops and resources from Afghanistan to Iraq at this point in time?And if it is worth doing it now, why do we have to invade all on our own before summer? Can't we wait for inspections to conclude or propose a humanitarian intervention through the UN and get some outside assistance so that we can wage the WOT and free Iraqis at the same time? I think those are all crucial questions. It's not only a question of whether it was right to invade. It's a question of whether Bush picked the right time to invade and whether he went about getting support correctly.

You yourself say that the most important threat to the US is terrorism yet you think it is wise at this point in time for the US to be allocating its military resources, not to protecting itself against terrorism, but rather to bringing human rights to people in other countries. Even if we assume that such interference in sovereign states is not going to breed the kind of resistance that manifests in terrorism, do you still think (given what you know about the threat Iraq didn't represent) it was a wise move to expose US security by tying up so many military resources in a philanthropic mission in Iraq; resources that could be used to fight terrorism? And now that there is a "terrorist" problem in Iraq, is that threat being adequately addressed? Is it sucking too many resources into the problem that the US is exposed elsewhere? Doesn't the US need a new plan in Iraq to solve this problem? In light of the experience in Iraq, shouldn't the US be more circumspect in future of pursuing the New American Century or philanthropic projects if for no other reason than the fact that they tie up resources that are needed in the WOT which is after all, according to you, the major US national interest at the moment?

4) The USA specifically and the Western world in general is not very interested in propagating human rights. The USA isn't even particularly good at propagating them at home - it has a pretty dismal human rights track record at the moment given its lack of respect for the right to life. The Republican Party least of all are interested in humanitarian interventions. The neocons will tell you that straight out. They criticised Clinton for intervening when genocide was being committed on a daily basis in Bosnia. They certainly wouldn't have approved of intervening to sort out Saddam's comparatively mild indiscretions. American foreign policy has very rarely been philanthropic. Current American foreign policy is about consolidating American hegemony. Schluss, fertig, point final.

5) That is not to say that many people are not happy that Saddam is out of the picture or that we don't think Saddam should face justice for his crimes. Saddam's departure is the only positive spin-off of this war so far. It is simply to say you shouldn't insult our intelligence by telling us Iraq was invaded because of humanitarian concerns and that makes the intervention noble. Someone else made a termite analogy in another thread which would apply here. The price for Saddam's removal has been too high.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Actually what makes it impossible for the US to leave the world alone is that the US has a pretty big empire to uphold. Worldwar1 was the deciding element to turn the US into an empire, the ex-empires in Europe led wars while borrowing money from the US, that joyfully lend them money, a lot of money. Between worldwar1 and worldwar2 the US lived quite well from the paybacks from Europe, that were financed through the reparations Germany had to pay for losing worldwar1.

The financial empire of the US was a consequence of worldwar1, the military and cultural empire were the consequence of worldwar2, during which Europe basically destroyed its military and economic potential, with up to 50 million dead people. For half of worldwar2 the US financed all sides of the war, Germany, Italy, France, Britain and the Soviet-Union.

It was not so that the US suddenly developed a stronger army than Europe, that allowed to expand its empire from the american continent to the european continent and to all european colonies. It was the destruction of Europe's military potential in worldwar2, and the consequential dependance on the US' financial capabilities that it gained through ww1, that led to that development of the US overtaking Europe's hegemony, colonies and empires.

Additionaly the victory over Japan and the invention of the atom-bomb, that served as a deterrance to the Soviet-Union not to interfere, allowed the US to also get a foot on Asia.

On top of that the US used the opportunity to install a new world-economy that was/is based on the dollar, and unified the socalled victory-nations China, Soviet-Union, Britain, France in a new version of the organization League of Nations, called United Nations and based it in the US for better control and surveillance.

What about the cultural empire? Well, before the two worldwars, Europe already had a cultural empire thanks to the colonies it had. From the colonies Europe exploited the ressources and transported them to Europe where they were refined and used to produce industrial products that were then delivered back to the colonies to be sold there...
The US overtook that concept and changed it slightly according to Britain's ideas developed between the worldwars, namely to use a local elite to play the local governor for the US, equipped with enough money, weapons and training to control the masses, to keep the market open for western products while securing the flow of the ressources out of the neo-colonies to the west.

That way US-culture and life-style found its way to all the ex-Europe-colonies, but also to the countries that lost worldwar2, like Japan and Germany, that had for example to fulfill a quota of US-movies to be played in cinemas and TV, and also to all other countries that were dependent on US-financial help..

For Europe, that is not bad, considering that the US mainly consist of ex-europeans, and considering that the US is mainly christian, but for the non-european countries the US-culture-empire is oppressive.

If the US would decide to leave the world alone, it would have to give up the military, financial and cultural empire, and that would mean a pretty hard decade(s) to change the US-economy to do without the benifits of an empire.

Taliesin

Talie, I think you are intelligent and I appreciate your insight and all but, the cultural empire??? The financial empire???
I guess by your definition, the "British Invasion" of the US in the 60's should have prompted a declaration of WAR!

You can do better.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:

I guess by your definition, the "British Invasion" of the US in the 60's should have prompted a declaration of WAR!

The british army has invaded the US in the sixties? Never heard of that, please explain.

Taliesin

[vmarks]

The "British Invasion" of the 1960s is the name given to the phenomenon beginning in 1964 more or less with the British rock and roll musicians overcoming Elvis in record sales. The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Kinks, Who, and lesser notables such as Gerry and the Pacemakers, Herman's Hermits are examples of such musicians.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
The "British Invasion" of the 1960s is the name given to the phenomenon beginning in 1964 more or less with the British rock and roll musicians overcoming Elvis in record sales. The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Kinks, Who, and lesser notables such as Gerry and the Pacemakers, Herman's Hermits are examples of such musicians.

Ah, I see, thanks for the info. Now my last reply to him looks very funny.

Taliesin