450 posts IS a worse crime than wanting to kill us . by AURaptor

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You'd be better off looking at the Roman empire, which indeed the US government and structure was partly based on. The Roman empire expanded to a great extent, then it's borders became stable, and Roman influence was propagated outside of it's borders largely via client states. I think the Roman Empire with it's Senatorial and Imperial provinces and client states, is a closer historical match to the US, with it's States, territories and satellite states, than Britain that was a colonial trading empire. Rome and the US have conquered territory and then absorbed them, while Britain conquered territory and administered it.

I think there are similar and dissimilar elements. I did try to make an analogy with Rome, but no one commented on the oblique Monty Python reference.

I think US empire has a number of components. The annexing of terrorities in the 19th Cent, to a time of isolationism, then into economic expansion to new territories but without a direct administrative control, other than as you have rightly pointed out, installing the odd tinpot dictator that supports US interests. Likewise, Britain's empire was initially based on its privately owned trading companies, and/or landholders that needed military back up when the natives got restless.

For those posters who dismiss the meaning of the military bases, I can tell you as one who lives on foreign soil where there have been such bases, it doesn't actually give you a great sense of self determination (particularly when you've been used as a nuclear testing ground}. Perhaps you might imagined how it might feel if China had military bases on US soil.

In addition, think of the incredible power of the US President. Why do you think foreigners take an interest in US affairs, like who is elected. It's not because we think you're all swell, it's because US policies, even internal ones will have an incredible impact on world affairs.

It's Empire, just a different kind.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 16, 2009 4:13 PM

Quote:
It's not because we think you're all swell...

Dang. And all this time I thought it was because everybody just loved us...

I'm a little crestfallen. Honestly, there may be tears.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 16, 2009 5:24 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Yeah, that's exactly what's happened. Only, it's not remotely true.

Except it's completely true, your willfull self delusion not withstanding.

Your lack of knowledge of your own history is truly astounding.

April 25, 1846 to February 2, 1848, the Mexican-American war, added California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, parts of Colorado and Wyoming, New Mexico and Texas to the US, through military conquest of Mexico. That's ignoring the various wars against the Indian nations that saw America expand westward. I could also mention the war of 1812, that saw America attempt to annex Canada, luckily the Canadians with very limited help from Britain (since it was fighting Napoleon at the time) out fought the US troops. I suppose since you had your collective arses handed to you by Canadians, a people you are generally so derisive of, I can understand why you'd wish to ignore that part of your history. There's also the Spanish-American war of 1898, that saw the annexation of Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam, that remain territories and protectorates of the US to this day.

Much of the current US, it's States and it's territories, were incorporated through conflict with Mexico and the American Natives. Your attempt to claim that isn't so simply by ignoring reality is weak, delusional and simply not true.

Hawaii is also an excellent example of this,

But, also in more recent years, it is more of economic control by proxy.

Say Egypt, the government there has done some horrendous things in the last twenty five years. But the US gov gets what it asks for from that gov, so they get military aid, intel support etc against anyone who might what to change the gov in Egypt.

That seems to have made anyone opposed to the gov in Egypt, a enemy of the US. But still, you all are shocked when they attack Americans and their interests.

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 16, 2009 5:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
It's not because we think you're all swell...

Dang. And all this time I thought it was because everybody just loved us...

I'm a little crestfallen. Honestly, there may be tears.

Mike

Well you are pretty swell, just don't let it go to your head.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 16, 2009 5:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Well, I did try and get people here interested in the mis-management of Zimbabwe by the Mugabe government, but interest - judging by responses - was pretty low. Have also noted the starvation in North Korea. Again, no interest.

It pretty much seems that if you can't blame it on the U.S., no one here is very interested in any disaster or crisis.

Or you could say, if it doesn't involve the US, people aren't very interested. The US is quite renowned for being self involved as a nation.

Nevertheless, perhaps part of it is discussing what can be changed. Some of the terrible things that happen in the world are difficult to stop (unless you plan to invade Zimbabwe in the near future.) However, US policies regarding matters such as torture are something that US citizens have some power over. Hence the discussion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 1:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Hawaii is also an excellent example of this,

I'm not sure about Hawaii, the annexation to a territory was made by vote rather than conflict wasn't it? I believe the legality is questioned, because the vote only took place in the US Government, so it could just be the case that the US voted to annex Hawaii, then when they turned up in Hawaii to tell the natives they just shrugged their shoulders and said whatever.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 1:27 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

In the past 150 yrs, exactly how many 'new lands' has the US conquered, taken over and incorporated into the nation?

Anyone from GB has no room to talk about what the U.S. had done in the way of being an 'Empire'. It's absurd to even bring up the topic.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 1:33 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

kwickie,

I'm not wrong, not even in the tiniest bit. Why isn't Canada, Mexico or even simply Cuba a part of the U.S. if we're such an 'Imperial' nation? It's a complete load of anti-American bull shit that gets repeated so many damn times, that mouth breathers like you( and sadly, too many on this board ) simply accept it as fact. But because someone dares interject anything different than the " everyone thinks it, so it must be true " mentality of this place, your first reaction is to jump on that person an start the insults. If that's the sort of B.S. you feel you need to get you through your pathetic excuse of a life, then have at it. It's clear you and your sort aren't capable of dealing in facts.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I think there are similar and dissimilar elements. I did try to make an analogy with Rome, but no one commented on the oblique Monty Python reference.

I think US empire has a number of components. The annexing of terrorities in the 19th Cent, to a time of isolationism, then into economic expansion to new territories but without a direct administrative control, other than as you have rightly pointed out, installing the odd tinpot dictator that supports US interests. Likewise, Britain's empire was initially based on its privately owned trading companies, and/or landholders that needed military back up when the natives got restless.

I think a colonial empire is such a different type of empire to a contiguous land empire of the type in Rome and the US, that analogies between the British Empire and the US would seem to be almost useless. The British Empire, along with those of most of the European nations, were a product first of Mercantilism, then of National Prestige, in a time when the word Empire hadn't been discredited yet. Mercantalism saw a nations wealth as literally dependent on how much precious metals it had in reserve, and it also saw trade as Zero sum. The result is that if you trade with someone else, one of you is a winner, and one a loser. The obvious result of this is that the European Mercantile powers had to either accept losing out on trade, and grow poorer by shipping precious metals over seas if they wanted exotic goods from places like India or the Americas, or they had to incorporate them so they were only trading with themselves. This can be seen most clearly in the British Annexation of Hong Kong. The readers digest version is that Britain wanted to trade Opium from its colonies, for Chinese goods (Tea, Silk ect), while the Chinese made Opium illegal and demanded precious metals (specifically silver) in trade. The Opium Wars grew out of this and British smuggling of Opium to pay for the goods it required without spending silver it neither had nor could afford to lose. The Opium wars ended with the annexation of Hong Kong, and various one sided trade agreements that ensured that China was the looser in the Mercantalist Zero-sum trade game. India shows a similar dynamic, Britain required the raw resources of the sub-continent, and since Mercantilism discouraged the trade of raw resources between nations...

Of course there's more too it than that, but Mercantilism, and gaining control of exotic goods and resources from the new and old world, was a major component of European Colonial expansion. The United States, however, was never much of an adherent to Mercantilism (Mercantilism, and the fact that the American colonies were forced to trade only with Britain, was an underlying cause for the war of independence in fact). The American colonies preferred a much more open market, as it better served their interests, which slotted in nicely with Capitalism when it later became the dominant economic system. But at it's heart, while the European nations were expanding their colonies not to gain territory so much, as to gain control of trade and resources, the USA had no such need because of it's more open trading policies. So the expansion westward wasn't about gain control of resources as much as it was about gaining territory.

Which is why I think European colonialism, British in particular, is a bad analogy for the United States. Britain never incorporated its colonies, it never particularly Anglicised them either. If you walked into a city in India during the British Raj, then it would be an Indian city. If you walked into a Roman or American controlled city, invariably they are/were uniquely of that culture. The reasons and methods of European colonialism are entirely different to those of the US. Now, sure there's a whiff of colonialism to current US actions, but it's still rather different, and more like the controls Rome employed after first century AD.

As an aside perhaps Empire being discredited, shows why describing America as an Empire is so controversial (even to Imperialist Jingoists like AURaptor). In the 19th Century being an empire proved your country was powerful, and had little negative connotation. Now of course, with the fall of European colonialism, the "white man's burden" and the atrocities that were perpetrated in it's name, the word Empire has only a negative connotation. Now it means you've waged wars of aggression, and oppressed the people who are now your subjects. So describing America as an Empire obviously is more pejorative than it is perhaps meant, it carries negative connotations that a country that threw off the shackles of an oppressive foreign power, that was built on the idea of individual liberty, could become an oppressive power itself. Which is perhaps something the people of that nation may not want to face yet (as it was with the European Empires, the collapse of European Colonialism carried with it a rude awakening).

Possibly the worst part of describing the US as an Empire, is that it runs counter to American Exceptionalism, the self belief that America is different to every other nation in history. If America is an empire, it's pretty much doing and acting like every other human society has done. Perhaps pointing out that America is no better, but also no worse than it's contemporaries, that they aren't particularly different or exceptional, is the worst insult one can pay to an American.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
In the past 150 yrs, exactly how many 'new lands' has the US conquered, taken over and incorporated into the nation?

Yes that's right Rap, when the evidence doesn't go your way, you try to make sure that that evidence is ignored. By 300 Ad the borders of the Roman Empire had been stable for over 200 years, so by your argument (presumably that the Mexican American war was over 150 years ago, so doesn't count), the Roman Empire, wasn't an Empire in 300AD, because their territory hadn't expanded in over 150 years. Really that argument isn't just stupid, it's paramount to a lie as well. It's more of the same from you, when you can't argue your case honestly, you become dishonest.

150 years ago was 1859, a hell of a lot of expansion was continuing at that time. One could argue that it includes the Civil war, and that was about regaining lost territory. At any rate, how long ago the US built it's territorial empire, says nothing of its current Imperial status. If it's last expansion was five hundred years ago, it would still be an Empire if it still held those territories.

Quote:
Anyone from GB has no room to talk about what the U.S. had done in the way of being an 'Empire'. It's absurd to even bring up the topic.

What an idiotic statement. America isn't an Empire because Britain was one once? I'm not sure whether I should be relieved, because you're so desperate to make an argument you've scratched through the bottom of the barrel and are currently into the dirt below, or feel sorry for you for the same reason. Is your rebuttal to America being an Empire really that there's been Empires in the past? That's just sad, and how appropriate for you to use the word absurd, your "argument" certainly is.

How much of Britain's empire remains intact? None, Britain isn't an Empire any longer. There's less room for a citizen of a current empire to talk about what a historical empire did, and it's certainly patently absurd to use that non-existent empire to legitimise (or even argue against the existence of) the actions of the US.

What does the historical existence of the British Empire have to do with America's own Empire building? It's absurd and idiotic to even bring up that subject.

I suppose being relieved and pitying you is the correct response. The best you can do to say the US isn't an Empire, is too say Britain was one once? That proves little, beyond that you've lost the argument, and can't admit it. Frankly your attempts at a rebuttal are completely off topic, and rather pathetic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
kwickie,

I'm not wrong, not even in the tiniest bit. Why isn't Canada, Mexico or even simply Cuba a part of the U.S. if we're such an 'Imperial' nation? It's a complete load of anti-American bull shit that gets repeated so many damn times, that mouth breathers like you( and sadly, too many on this board ) simply accept it as fact. But because someone dares interject anything different than the " everyone thinks it, so it must be true " mentality of this place, your first reaction is to jump on that person an start the insults. If that's the sort of B.S. you feel you need to get you through your pathetic excuse of a life, then have at it. It's clear you and your sort aren't capable of dealing in facts.

Yet you're the only one who hasn't provided any facts, and the best argument so far has been to try and ignore facts that have already been presented. What you claim other people are doing, is clearly only true of yourself. As usual you claim other people can't deal with facts, while it's only you who is ignoring reality. Why isn't Mexico a province of the US? Half of it's historical territory is, as I've shown and you've only tried to ignore. Cuba isn't part of the US? No, it was a client state that Congress decided not to incorporate (but how that dismisses the corporation of Polynesia and others, is something only your simplistic compartmentalised propagandist mind could ever answer). But the violent and childish reaction to Cuba's revolution, deposing the American puppet government in Cuba, is rather telling. A situation that continues to this day. And clearly since it upsets you so much I think I should repeat it, Canada isn't under US control, because they kicked your arse when you tried.

The United States isn't an Empire because it doesn't control every territory in the whole world? Wow, that's perhaps the stupidest argument I've ever heard. So Britain wasn't an Empire because it didn't control Algiers, or Afghanistan. Rome wasn't an Empire because it didn't control India. So your rebuttal for America being an empire, is that there is no such thing as empires in the history of the world? Nice.

I think the fact that rather than present arguments or facts as to why America isn't an empire, you ignore arguments and facts that say it is, and just personally insult anyone who presents those arguments and facts, rather disproves your position, and says a great deal about yourself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:02 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

citizen, why do I threaten your belief system so much ? You are so overtly obsessed w/ attacking every minute detail of my post, particularly on the most mundane and pointless threads.

The US isn't, nor has been, an Empire. That's not to say there were parts of its history there wasn't SOME expansion, but 2 world wars and a few more skirmishes have shown that the U.S. isn't in the business of taking places over and colonizing them like GB did w/ India, Taiwan and too many on the list.

Hell, we let you have the Falkland Islands, when we easily could have enacted the Monroe Doctrine. So stop your whining, PLEASE.

There really is no debate here. It's pointless to even have discussed it so far. All you're doing is projecting what disgust and hatred you have for your own damn self and directing it towards the U.S. in some sad, pathetic display of petty jealousy.

Dude, just get over this anti-US hatred you have. It serves no purpose, and to the contrary, does you far more harm than good. In the next 10-20 yrs, Europe will be looking towards the U.S. to save it, so don't go biting the hand that'll likely save your ass.

Again.

Have fun pounding away on the keyboard. I'm off this thread.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 5:07 AM

JKIDDO

Quote:
The US isn't, nor has been, an Empire.-rappy

In the modern definition of empire:

Quote:
Writings within the theoretical framework of neocolonialism argue that existing or past international economic arrangements created by former colonial powers were or are used to maintain control of their former colonies and dependencies after the colonial independence movements of the post World War II period. The term Neocolonialism can combine a critique of current actual colonialism (where some states continue administrating foreign territories and their populations in violation of United Nations resolutions[1]) and a critique of modern capitalist businesses involvement in nations which were former colonies. Critics adherent to neocolonialism contend that private, foreign business companies continue to exploit the resources of post-colonial states, and that this economic control inherent to neocolonialism is akin to the classical, European colonialism practiced from the 16th to the 20th centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism

If we're not an empire, why do we have troops stationed in every part of the world?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 5:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Why isn't Canada, Mexico or even simply Cuba a part of the U.S. if we're such an 'Imperial' nation?

1) I take it you've never heard of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base? Quite simply, part of Cuba IS part of the American Empire. It was taken through war.

2) Great swaths of Mexican land were also taken through war.

So you're saying that because we GOT the land through war, and KEPT the land through war, but not in the last 5 years, that we're not an empire, and never have been?

Wow, you are one deluded little monkey.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 5:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen, why do I threaten your belief system so much ? You are so overtly obsessed w/ attacking every minute detail of my post, particularly on the most mundane and pointless threads.

My belief system? Clearly (from your violent, childish and off topic reactions) it's your belief system that is being threatened. Really I don't understand this preoccupation you have with assigning your actions to others.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The US isn't, nor has been, an Empire.

Except it has all the hallmarks of one, and your best defence of your position is to stick your fingers in your ears, and say "nuhuh, is not" then become personally insulting. The fact that I've basically proven my case, and your only response is an ad hominen disproves your assertion. I have no doubt you're incapable of realising or accepting that.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
That's not to say there were parts of its history there wasn't SOME expansion, but 2 world wars and a few more skirmishes have shown that the U.S. isn't in the business of taking places over and colonizing them like GB did w/ India, Taiwan and too many on the list.

Britain defeated Napoleons France, and yet France remained independent. Britain defeated Germany in those same World wars, yet Germany remains independent. Using your own criteria that proves Britain was never an Empire. Since Britain was an Empire, clearly your argument, and your criteria are wrong. Your inability to accept or grasp that, is really unimportant.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Hell, we let you have the Falkland Islands, when we easily could have enacted the Monroe Doctrine. So stop your whining, PLEASE.

Since Britain renewed sovereignty of those Islands after the Argentinian settlement was destroyed by America in a display of American Imperial Largess, and since America didn't have the capability to contend Britain's claim at the time I'll take your ridiculous and insubstantial assertion with the contempt it deserves. Really you're the only one whining "American isn't an empire cause, cause, cause I say so, boo hoo", and it would be real nice if you'd stop.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
There really is no debate here. It's pointless to even have discussed it so far.

Yes, you're absolutely right. You were proven wrong sometime ago. Your desperate need to continue to jabber on impotently, to ignore facts and reality is as pointless as it is constant.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
All you're doing is projecting what disgust and hatred you have for your own damn self and directing it towards the U.S. in some sad, pathetic display of petty jealousy.

And there, when the facts disprove you, when you're argument collapses, you run back to your standard tactic of being personally insulting, and hoping to dismiss the argument by attacking the one making it. If my statements were merely the fabrication of jealousy, then they'd be easy to dismiss without blathering on impotently about my supposed hatred of the US. Clearly since your only avenue is to make these claims about me, and to ignore my argument in entirety, you have proven you can't attack my argument. To put it more succinctly, by making these accusations, you disprove their validity, it really is fun to watch.

Lastly you need to remember that not everyone is like you. Just because you're a Jingoistic Imperialistic Nationalist, doesn't mean I am. Just because you are enraged by people not being under your boot, doesn't mean I'm jealous of American expansion.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Dude, just get over this anti-US hatred you have. It serves no purpose, and to the contrary, does you far more harm than good. In the next 10-20 yrs, Europe will be looking towards the U.S. to save it, so don't go biting the hand that'll likely save your ass.

Again.

I'm not displaying US hatred (though wouldn't "anti-US hatred", be hatred of anti-US sentiment, not hatred of the US?). I think this is an excellent opportunity to point out what I said earlier, how I mentioned that the US is no better, but also no worse than other nations, but how this dismissal of American exceptionalism is something some Americans find to be an unpardonable insult. "But we are better than you, and the only reason you don't accept that is because you hate the US!", AURaptor impotently whines, missing the fact that that very sentiment proves me right. Indeed the only nationalist hatred being displayed here is yours, and your clear hatred and derisiveness of Europe. Not that Europe is special in that regard, you show your absolute hatred for anything "not American" at every available opportunity. Thus the proof for your nationalism is in your own statements.

Current trends actually point to something quite different to your arrogant imperial scenario. Europe is moving to closer integration, the European Union is actually the largest economy in the world right now. American power seems to be on the cusp of decline, partly through over extending your resources (as the British Empire did in the 1920's) and partly because your contemporaries (such as China) are gaining ground in their own right. The trends appear to be moving from the dual polar world of the Cold War, through the Uni-Polar one of the the "Pax Americana", toward a more 19th century like multi-polar one. America could weather that, as the European powers did, but if you're anything to go by, I have my doubts that the American people have the capability to do so. Your nationalist arrogance will not be a help in the future. Assumptions of exceptionalism won't help you when the American Empire goes the way of every Empire in history. Take some solace in the fact that the likeliest course for the United States is rather peaceful fractioning as independent states secede. I'm sure one of those will become a war like dictatorship, law of averages and all that, so at least you'll be happy. You can become the concentration camp guard you've always wanted to be, just think of the big shiny boots!

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Have fun pounding away on the keyboard. I'm off this thread.

Of course, you've been proven wrong on all and every count, and your attempts at personal attacks haven't proved the fruitful trolling you'd hoped. Retreat, followed by returning to another thread with the same tired disproved arguments is the last weapon in your arsenal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 5:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen, why do I threaten your belief system so much ? You are so overtly obsessed w/ attacking every minute detail of my post, particularly on the most mundane and pointless threads.

Rappy, why do I threaten your belief system so much? You are so obsessed with attacking every minute detail of every post I make, particularly in the most mundane and pointless ways.

Quote:

The US isn't, nor has been, an Empire. That's not to say there were parts of its history there wasn't SOME expansion, but 2 world wars and a few more skirmishes have shown that the U.S. isn't in the business of taking places over and colonizing them like GB did w/ India, Taiwan and too many on the list.

Really? So we didn't expand our area through those "few skirmishes"? We didn't expand our influence and our military presence in parts of the world where we really had no business interfering? Bases in Taiwan, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Crete, Cyprus, Cuba, Guam, and a multitude of other places would seem to put the lie to your myth that we're not expansionist or controlling, some of the earmarks of Empire. Did we not expand our area just on the North American continent with wars with the French, British, Spanish, and others?

Quote:

Hell, we let you have the Falkland Islands, when we easily could have enacted the Monroe Doctrine. So stop your whining, PLEASE.

You mean the unilateral empire-building Monroe Doctrine, by which the U.S. saw fit to grab land from other nations in an all-out effort to spread its empire all the way to the Pacific ocean, and everyone else be damned? THAT Monroe Doctrine?

Quote:

There really is no debate here. It's pointless to even have discussed it so far.

Yes, it's pointless for you to try to argue that America is not and never has been an empire. Yet here you are, still trying to sell that line of bullshit.

Quote:

Dude, just get over this anti-US hatred you have. It serves no purpose, and to the contrary, does you far more harm than good. In the next 10-20 yrs, Europe will be looking towards the U.S. to save it, so don't go biting the hand that'll likely save your ass.

Dude, just get over your hatred of anyone who would DARE to criticize the U.S., ever. It serves no purpose, and only alienates those who actually might try to help you one day. In the next 10-20 years, the U.S. will be looking to Europe to save our nation, so don't go biting the hand you'll need to save your ass. Hell, without the help of so many other nations, the U.S. would have gotten its ass whipped in Afghanistan and Iraq a long time ago.

Quote:

Have fun pounding away on the keyboard. I'm off this thread.

I'm betting I can make a liar out of you yet again. Go ahead - stay off this thread and prove me wrong.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 11:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I can be against Obama's policies and NOT be a racist." But until you can elucidate a rational reason WHY, it gets left to others to speculate their own reasons. And if, like the repubicans in congress, you are opposed to EVERYTHING, such blanket opposition comes across as simply racist. Because you aren't reacting to issues, but to the president.

I see, so irrational disagreement with the president makes you a racist. Good to know.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I can be against homosexual marriage and NOT be a homophobe." I don't see how, unless you independently are a religious zealot.

It’s actually quite simple. Some people have points of view that differ from yours on the issue of marriage.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I can be against un-checked illegal immigration and NOT be a racist/xenophobe." But who is FOR un-checked illegal immigration ? Not Obama, not the party, not me. So this position is just so much grandstanding.

Open border proponents. And I have seen the open border argument on this board before. So it is not grandstanding.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I can be against Muslim Jihadism and NOT be a genocidal murderer. etc. etc. etc..." But until you disavow the statements of people like Rap, that position will be plastered to you. Remember, 'silence is consent'.

So because you failed to support the Invasion of Iraq, you supported Saddam Hussein’s ruthless regime.

So rue, you are racist because of your irrational disagreement a US president and you are supporter of genocide because of your implied support for the Ba’ath in Iraq. This according to your own opinion, not mine.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 11:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And you call yourself a lawyer ? Even as pure bullshit, that was pretty lame.

Really? And of course there’s nothing Bullshit about trying to equate a handful of anti-abortion nuts with Hezbollah.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 12:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I don't think your analogy is a good one. Slavery and segregation have been banned. You still have a stockpile of nuclear weapons. The mind set around use of nuclear weapons hasn't really changed at all. Most people would consider it to have been necessary to drop the bomb to end WW2, and that the US has the right to own, and if necessary use, nuclear weapons in similar circumstances. On the other hand, most people find slavery abhorrent.

I think you are misinterpreting some things. First, part of the reason why the bombs were dropped at the end of WWII is because the casualties for invading Japan were assessed to be in the millions. As many as 1 to 2 million US casualties and many millions of Japanese. The bombs as abhorrent as they were, resulted in only about 200,000 casualties, making them far less abhorrent the alternative. Given the same circumstances most reasonable people, even today, would choose 200,000 casualties over many millions. And nuclear technology is banned. It is classified as “restricted,” and requires special privileges regardless of your pay grade or clearance. It’s proliferation is banned by international treaty. And attempts to dissuade its development by other nations, like Iran and North Korea, is a further a part of the gravity with which the restrictions on nuclear technology are taken.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 12:48 PM

Quote:
Finn wrote:

And nuclear technology is banned. It is classified as “restricted,” and requires special privileges regardless of your pay grade or clearance. It’s proliferation is banned by international treaty.

Banned by who? "Restricted" by who?

Are you saying that if the U.N. bans something, EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD must follow that ban, regardless of whether they voted in favor of it? And if they DON'T obey the U.N., they should be invaded, or nuked?

Also, are you saying that international treaties bind even nations who didn't sign them. I'll alert Kyoto...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 12:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Really? And of course there’s nothing Bullshit about trying to equate a handful of anti-abortion nuts with Hezbollah.

Actually, I was comparing them to Al Qaeda. And no, it's not bullshit to compare murderous religious zealots to murderous religious zealots. They have the same goals (killing as many as possible to get attention for the "cause"), and they use the same tactics. And in both cases, the actions of a few zealots are having an impact.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 1:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Banned by who? "Restricted" by who?

The US, Canada, Australia and the UK for starters. Nuclear technology is classified Restricted in all these countries.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Actually, I was comparing them to Al Qaeda. And no, it's not bullshit to compare murderous religious zealots to murderous religious zealots. They have the same goals (killing as many as possible to get attention for the "cause"), and they use the same tactics. And in both cases, the actions of a few zealots are having an impact.

Yeah, okay. Let me know when the anti-abortions nuts run a jetliner into a skyscraper or blow a 60 foot hole in a US Destroyer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 1:06 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Hawaii is also an excellent example of this,

I'm not sure about Hawaii, the annexation to a territory was made by vote rather than conflict wasn't it? I believe the legality is questioned, because the vote only took place in the US Government, so it could just be the case that the US voted to annex Hawaii, then when they turned up in Hawaii to tell the natives they just shrugged their shoulders and said whatever.

http://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/history/liliuokalani.html

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 1:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I don't think your analogy is a good one. Slavery and segregation have been banned. You still have a stockpile of nuclear weapons. The mind set around use of nuclear weapons hasn't really changed at all. Most people would consider it to have been necessary to drop the bomb to end WW2, and that the US has the right to own, and if necessary use, nuclear weapons in similar circumstances. On the other hand, most people find slavery abhorrent.
I think you are misinterpreting some things. First, part of the reason why the bombs were dropped at the end of WWII is because the casualties for invading Japan were assessed to be in the millions. As many as 1 to 2 million US casualties and many millions of Japanese. The bombs as abhorrent as they were, resulted in only about 200,000 casualties, making them far less abhorrent the alternative. Given the same circumstances most reasonable people, even today, would choose 200,000 casualties over many millions. And nuclear technology is banned. It is classified as “restricted,” and requires special privileges regardless of your pay grade or clearance. It’s proliferation is banned by international treaty. And attempts to dissuade its development by other nations, like Iran and North Korea, is a further a part of the gravity with which the restrictions on nuclear technology are taken.

It's interesting how you feel the need to justify the bombing of Japan, when I have not criticised it on this thread. I've taken a neutral stance to that action, yet you interpret it as negative.

You have clearly stated, if similar circumstances were to happen today, then similar action would probably take place. That is what I have said. You have argued yourself into agreement.

I don't agree with what you have said about nuclear technology. Nuclear technology is indeed widely available, for both energy purposes and for weapons. The US has not even ratified the complete ban on nuclear testing and has not disarmed itself. The only UN treaty that stands is one prohibiting those countries without weapons from obtaining them, a treaty which could be seen as serving the interests of maintaining the power of those nations with nuclear capacity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 1:36 PM

Cit, I won't repost your excellent long post. I guess I agree with most of it, but do think US modern expansion has also been about resources, oil and other fossil fuels would be one example, but also about opening new markets, as you infer.

I also think that Britain did leave its stamp of culture on its colonies. India has a whole era of Raj architecture, particularly the administrative buildings which is very British. You introduced English as the administrative language and language of the educated to most of your colonies. Aspiring classes adopted British manners, fashions and accent, even sending their kids away to British schools to be more British.

Australia prior to WW2 would have considered itself British, people would talk about 'going home' when they visited England.

NB Sorry to any Americans for the Empire insult. Didn't realise etc etc.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You have clearly stated, if similar circumstances were to happen today, then similar action would probably take place. That is what I have said. You have argued yourself into agreement.

Yes. But that has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, that was the point I was trying to make. It’s simply a desire reduce casualties. We do the same thing with conventional weapons. For instance, we don’t use carpet bombing like we used to. Instead we use guided missiles, because they help to reduce casualties, which is the same reason we used nuclear weapons at the end of WWII.

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I don't agree with what you have said about nuclear technology. Nuclear technology is indeed widely available, for both energy purposes and for weapons. The US has not even ratified the complete ban on nuclear testing and has not disarmed itself. The only UN treaty that stands is one prohibiting those countries without weapons from obtaining them, a treaty which could be seen as serving the interests of maintaining the power of those nations with nuclear capacity.

Let me ask you this, do you thin the US should completely eliminate nuclear weapons from its arsenal? And if we did, do you think it would make the US safer?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Let me ask you this, do you thin the US should completely eliminate nuclear weapons from its arsenal? And if we did, do you think it would make the US safer?

Again you read some neutral statements and do a lot of assuming about my views.

I would love to see a world where there was no nuclear weapons, but I also know that once that genie was let out the bottle there was no going back. I'm not sure how useful it has to have WMD at this point in time, seeing as though the current major threats to the US don't come from countries, but factions that are without a stable base or government. In other words, in times of threat who do you threaten to nuke? In recent decades, military technology has moved away from development of weapons of mass destruction to more technologically advanced weapons of combat.

I also did not want Iraq to have WMD, but thought it was a pretty thin excuse to go to war (particularly as there weren't any)

I might add, Osama Bin laden anyone? Never understood how the post 9/11 response was to invade Iraq.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I would love to see a world where there was no nuclear weapons, but I also know that once that genie was let out the bottle there was no going back. I'm not sure how useful it has to have WMD at this point in time, seeing as though the current major threats to the US don't come from countries, but factions that are without a stable base or government. In other words, in times of threat who do you threaten to nuke? In recent decades, military technology has moved away from development of weapons of mass destruction to more technologically advanced weapons of combat.

So you recognize that we can’t undo the existence of nuclear weapons. We are stuck with the threat, whether we possess or not. If we disarm our nuclear arsenal, all we do is put ourselves at the feet of nations who continue to possess them. We don’t want these weapons in the hands of nations like Iran or North Korea, because we have good reason to be leery that these nations will use those weapons responsibly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:02 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Let me ask you this, do you thin the US should completely eliminate nuclear weapons from its arsenal? And if we did, do you think it would make the US safer?

No, and, obviously not.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 12:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Cit, I won't repost your excellent long post. I guess I agree with most of it, but do think US modern expansion has also been about resources, oil and other fossil fuels would be one example, but also about opening new markets, as you infer.

I also think that Britain did leave its stamp of culture on its colonies. India has a whole era of Raj architecture, particularly the administrative buildings which is very British. You introduced English as the administrative language and language of the educated to most of your colonies. Aspiring classes adopted British manners, fashions and accent, even sending their kids away to British schools to be more British.

Sure, there was cultural bleed, but largely in it's colonies Britain adapted local rule to a British flavor of what came before, that is you had a British Raj of India, not a governor. India didn't get absorbed by Britain, it didn't become completely anglicised, it became British Administered India. This is uniquely different to territorial empires, Gaul wasn't merely administered by Rome, it was Roman. California isn't Administered by Washington, it's every bit as American as New England. I think that's a fairly big difference.

Now sure America has switched from territorial expansion to more gun boat diplomacy like that of Commodore Perry's 1850's trips to Japan, but even that is rather different to European Colonialism. European Colonialism saw the vassalisation of a foreign nation as the first step in colonisation. Especially Britain which depended heavily on the strategy of divide and conquer (take one local belligerent under your influence, get them to fight the other guy, then take over both when war has crippled them). Making a state your vassal was the first step to the goal of colonisation for the European powers, while America's end goal is to make them a vassal. But while America is trying to open markets, albeit with preferential trade agreements, the European powers were trying to close them.

I just find the reasons behind European and American expansion to be almost polar opposites, while the tactics for creating and holding that expansion are similarly unalike.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 12:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Banned by who? "Restricted" by who?

Restricted is a information classification, denoting only people with security clearance of Restricted and above can be given unrestricted access to that information or area. Restricted is actually not very high at all, MOD cleaners have to have Restricted level clearance. Of course any secure information or area is subject to need to know, if you don't need to know, then it doesn't matter how high your clearance or how low it's classification, if you don't need to know, you don't get to know. But that would be true of how many paper clips the MOD buys if it was secure information, if it has a security classification, it's automatically need to know.

As for Nuclear Technology being restricted, I highly doubt it. Restricted is the lowest tier of Military security clearance in the UK, denoting "Information and material the unauthorised disclosure of which would be UNDESIRABLE for the UK and it's interests".

I would suspect that Nuclear Weapons being "disclosed" without authorisation would be a little more than undesirable. The classification for UK nuclear weapons and capability would actually fall under Secret and Top Secret.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 1:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Banned by who? "Restricted" by who?

Restricted is a information classification, denoting only people with security clearance of Restricted and above can be given unrestricted access to that information or area. Restricted is actually not very high at all, MOD cleaners have to have Restricted level clearance. Of course any secure information or area is subject to need to know, if you don't need to know, then it doesn't matter how high your clearance or how low it's classification, if you don't need to know, you don't get to know. But that would be true of how many paper clips the MOD buys if it was secure information, if it has a security classification, it's automatically need to know.

As for Nuclear Technology being restricted, I highly doubt it. Restricted is the lowest tier of Military security clearance in the UK, denoting "Information and material the unauthorised disclosure of which would be UNDESIRABLE for the UK and it's interests".

I would suspect that Nuclear Weapons being "disclosed" without authorisation would be a little more than undesirable. The classification for UK nuclear weapons and capability would actually fall under Secret and Top Secret.

Oh, I totally get that, Cit - I was being a bit snarky to finn's claims, and trying to point out that maybe, just maybe, the whole world really isn't required to do as we say, not as we do.

I do find it odd, though, and more than a bit ironic: Here we are telling the entire WORLD what they can and can't do, yet we're still discussing whether or not we're an "empire".

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 2:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Oh, I totally get that, Cit - I was being a bit snarky to finn's claims, and trying to point out that maybe, just maybe, the whole world really isn't required to do as we say, not as we do.

I thought so, but I'm a bit perturbed at how Finn seems to be confusing internal information security with international weapons bans, and also claiming that nuclear technology would have the lowest level of Security protection.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 2:38 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Few empires have been as brutal as that one, which surprisingly only lasted a few years anyway. Maybe you should think about the British Empire, which did a whole lot of building, roads and transport,public building, established justice and democratic government systems, education and so on its empire building.

The British Empire was the exception...and its early history showed it traveling along that same old tyrannical path. But for the Liberal revolution...they'd have likely done much of the same.

Most empire had the brutality of the Nazis. Rome killed a lot of folks, the Soviets killed by the tens of millions, the Mongols were not know for tea and biscuits, I think one guy had an affinity for mountains of skulls, Microsoft...

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 2:49 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Rome and the US have conquered territory and then absorbed them , while Britain conquered territory and administered it.

Yeah, that's exactly what's happened. Only, it's not remotely true.

Wow. Just wow.

Do you ever get tired of being so wrong for so long, Rappy?

I don't see the distinction.

British policy until last century was to "make the world England".

The US has its share of imperial history. But it was a late comer to a game that Europe, especially England, had already mastered.

England's biggest distinction from traditional empires is the relative ease and peaceful nature of much of its decolonization. Although the effectiveness of the effort can be argued since successful 19th and 20th Century decolonization in places like India, Australia, and Canada are offset by most of Africa.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 2:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The British Empire was the exception...and its early history showed it traveling along that same old tyrannical path. But for the Liberal revolution...they'd have likely done much of the same.

Most empire had the brutality of the Nazis. Rome killed a lot of folks, the Soviets killed by the tens of millions, the Mongols were not know for tea and biscuits, I think one guy had an affinity for mountains of skulls, Microsoft...
2009.

What Liberal revolution are you referring to? I must have skipped class the day they taught that one.

Most European countries were empires of varying sizes until the the late 19th Century. Britain, France, Holland, Portugal and Spain all had territories. Hell, even Italy attempted to colonise Ethiopia (and did so briefly). They've all left their various legacies, which you do when you manipulate power for your own ends.

As for the Romans, you've made me do it...

eg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Attendee: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peace - shut up!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 2:52 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm not sure about Hawaii, the annexation to a territory was made by vote rather than conflict wasn't it? I believe the legality is questioned, because the vote only took place in the US Government, so it could just be the case that the US voted to annex Hawaii, then when they turned up in Hawaii to tell the natives they just shrugged their shoulders and said whatever.

We did kind of overthrow their government...just a little.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 3:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
As for Nuclear Technology being restricted, I highly doubt it. Restricted is the lowest tier of Military security clearance in the UK, denoting "Information and material the unauthorised disclosure of which would be UNDESIRABLE for the UK and it's interests".

Nuclear technology is marked “Restricted Data” by the US and NATO. The UK sometimes has a different marking for it, but it amounts to the same thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 3:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Oh, I totally get that, Cit - I was being a bit snarky to finn's claims, and trying to point out that maybe, just maybe, the whole world really isn't required to do as we say, not as we do.

You need to read posts more carefully.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 4:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Sure, there was cultural bleed, but largely in it's colonies Britain adapted local rule to a British flavor of what came before, that is you had a British Raj of India, not a governor. India didn't get absorbed by Britain, it didn't become completely anglicised, it became British Administered India. This is uniquely different to territorial empires, Gaul wasn't merely administered by Rome, it was Roman. California isn't Administered by Washington, it's every bit as American as New England. I think that's a fairly big difference.

And what about Canada? Was Canada a British administrated nation of Inuit? No. The British displaced the native population and set up shop. What about Australia? Yeah, Australia was a British administered nation of Australian Aboriginals. NOT. Hey, what about the US? Yeah, the Brits did the same there to. New “England” wasn’t a British administered nation of Algonquian, it was new England. And that wasn’t anything new for the British. They did everything they could to erase the native culture from Ireland, including ethnic cleansing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 6:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And what about Canada? Was Canada a British administrated nation of Inuit? No. The British displaced the native population and set up shop. What about Australia? Yeah, Australia was a British administered nation of Australian Aboriginals. NOT. Hey, what about the US? Yeah, the Brits did the same there to. New “England” wasn’t a British administered nation of Algonquian, it was new England. And that wasn’t anything new for the British. They did everything they could to erase the native culture from Ireland, including ethnic cleansing.

Ok, there are aspects of the ethnic cleansing undertaken by some British colonies that are the same as the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the American nations westward expansion. Those speak to certain techniques for gaining Empire, rather than the flavour of that Empire though.

My wider point still stands, the British Empire was a colonial empire, while America is a territorial one. Even your examples fail. All of those were counted as colonies under the charge of the British (or English) Government, they were never incorporated as British home territories, with only maybe the exception of Ireland, but only really the North. Is California just a colony of the USA, like Australia and Canada were Colonies of Britain? Or is it a state with voting rights in the national government?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 6:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Nuclear technology is marked “Restricted Data” by the US and NATO. The UK sometimes has a different marking for it, but it amounts to the same thing.

I thought the US designation for secure atomic information was Secret and Top Secret as well actually?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 6:53 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Is California just a colony of the USA, like Australia and Canada were Colonies of Britain? Or is it a state with voting rights in the national government?"

The people of the French colonies OTOH were citizens with voting rights etc.

It didn't make those countries any less of French colonies because of that.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 7:00 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"We don’t want these weapons in the hands of nations like Iran or North Korea, because we have good reason to be leery that these nations will use those weapons responsibly."

Of course there could always be a completely suicidal maniac leading a country - so twisted with hate that he (or she) will explode a nuclear device on US soil if it's that LAST thing they do - which it would be.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 7:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The people of the French colonies OTOH were citizens with voting rights etc.

It didn't make those countries any less of French colonies because of that.

Which French Colonies? The one's in the US were lost while France was still a monarchy, and even when they returned to France after the revolution, they were almost immediately sold to the US.

Besides, my question wasn't of voting rights or citizenship, I was talking about representation in the national government.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 3:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Ok, there are aspects of the ethnic cleansing undertaken by some British colonies that are the same as the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the American nations westward expansion. Those speak to certain techniques for gaining Empire, rather than the flavour of that Empire though.

My wider point still stands, the British Empire was a colonial empire, while America is a territorial one. Even your examples fail. All of those were counted as colonies under the charge of the British (or English) Government, they were never incorporated as British home territories, with only maybe the exception of Ireland, but only really the North. Is California just a colony of the USA, like Australia and Canada were Colonies of Britain? Or is it a state with voting rights in the national government?

I think your wider point is sounds more like the self-serving rhetoric of British ethnocentrisms. California is an independent state administered by Washington. That was even more so when it became a state. That’s not that different from the way British colonies were treated by London, except that London didn’t let them vote, so they didn’t have a say on how they were administered. And the only reason the British Crown didn’t displace the local culture in India, as they did in Canada, Australia and the Americas, is because the Indian culture was less primitive and more organized then it was in those colonies and therefore more difficult to eradicate. If they could have they would have completely displaced every culture they encountered with a British one. The only significant difference between the British Empire’s “flavor” of Empire and Manifest Destiny is that the British Manifest Destiny didn’t end at the Pacific – any place they could conquer they would make their own.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 3:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Nuclear technology is marked “Restricted Data” by the US and NATO. The UK sometimes has a different marking for it, but it amounts to the same thing.

I thought the US designation for secure atomic information was Secret and Top Secret as well actually?

Secret and Top Secret are classification levels. They have nothing specifically to do with nuclear technology.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 4:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
What Liberal revolution are you referring to? I must have skipped class the day they taught that one.

I think what Hero is referring to change in thought that occurred during the late 16th and early 17th century concerning the idea of freedom. The so called inalienable rights didn’t always exist. For most of European history, there was a caste system where a certainly ruling class was born with freedom and rights, while another working class was born with no freedom and no rights. This, like a lot of things, came from the Romans. Roman society was divided up into a ruling class (Patricians), euphemistically called the “fathers,” while everyone else were Plebeians (commoners). This was a purely artificial division based on presumed birthrights or genes. It had nothing to do with wealth, in fact, many patrician families were very poor (of course there social status meant they were never without a luxurious home and plenty of food). On the other side, the Plebeians weren’t always poor. There was a large diversity of wealth including everything from slaves to the fabulously wealthy robber barons, but they were never patricians. This aristocracy continued in Europe, and in some ways exists now. For instance, the British Parliament is divided into the House of Commons (the lower house) and the House of Lords (the upper house), which parallels the aristocratic divisions of British society into the nobles or Lords (those who were born with rights) and the everyone else.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 18, 2009 5:38 PM