Can't Post There, So
I haven't been posting much at Donklephant anymore, because, though it will take my posts sometimes, it rarely takes my comments if they are longer than a line or two. It's not like I'm missed or anything, but there's no point in opening a discussion that you can't continue, especially since the comments section seems to have collected a flock of tin-foil hat types who can't be taught, but deserve to be smacked.
I wanted to spank one of them who hijacked someone else's thread there, but, again, the comments wouldn't work for me. This time I was smart enough to save it before trying to post it and seeing it vanish. Here it is, just for the hell of it, just so I have something to show for the last half hour. This is the original thread.
What a tedious blowhard you are, Disenfranchised Voter.
You're confusing why Osama hates us with why you hate us. I don't recall seeing a whole lot of "global imperialism" in Osama's writings. He doesn't give a crap about global imperialism or economics, beyond the oil Allah gave to the Muslims. He writes about Jews, Crusaders, and getting both of them out of what he defines as Muslim lands. He writes about bringing America to its knees, not to the Kyoto Protocol. He's quite the imperialist himself.
When disasters like the Indian Ocean tsumani or the recent Pakistan earthquake struck, no amount of money in the world could do anything to save lives in the crucial first weeks, when hundreds of thousands were at risk from disease, starvation, and succumbing to injuries.
No amount of promises of money from European capitals could save a single life.
An aircraft carrier escort group, with helicopters and medic crews and a fresh-water-generation plant and an efficient system of organization and command structure, and tens of thousands of strong arms, however, could make a difference. And did.
And who pays for all that? Does it also serve other functions? Of course. But it was there when help was needed -- because those evil, hegemonistic U.S. military bases were close by -- and the help was willingly lent.
Better for DV if they had died in their millions.
The (typical) attitude here is that protecting any given nation from a Soviet takeover during the Cold War was purely in the interest of the United States. The Poles and Hungarians and others who had the pleasure of being absorbed into the socialist utopia will tell you a bit about how much better overall the world would be if America had refused to stand up to the Soviet Union's bid for global empire.
DV says "one shouldn’t disregard other’s rights in order to act in their own interest." But he refuses to allow that the U.S. can be acting in its own interests AND protecting the human rights of others. Such acts are assumed to be purely selfish and only accidently beneficial to non-Americans.
Let's just admit it's never going to be possible to really sort out at whose "request" a military base gets built. Kuwait asks for a U.S. base, but maybe they were pressured to ask, eh?
But how interesting that we compensate the countries where we build the bases. So that when Americans up and leave a military post, the local population gets upset because their economy suffers, as Germany did a few years back. It may be "legal bribery," if you wish -- but in your twisted and obsessive world any American money spent overrseas is bribery, any that is withheld is stinginess.
"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." [Robert O. Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism," 2004]
Seems to me Jimmy was technically right on the mark in calling Islamist terrorists "fascists."
Yep. Give them what they want so they stop killing you. Bye-bye Israel.
Centuries, eh? What centuries were those?
Actually, the number of U.S. military bases worldwide is closer to 700 than 70. But you can't expect someone who can't tell "decades" from "centuries" to be very good at numbers.
But having a lot of military bases doesn't make you an empire. America has a military base in France: is France a mere colony of the wicked Americans?
If you don't end up absorbing these countries under your sovereign power, as the Romans and British did, you're not an empire: you're just a global military power. Which America certainly is, and there's every excuse in the world for it: policing the seas against pirates, for instance. Or making sure that Europe and Japan get their flow of fairly purchased Middle Eastern oil.
Don't hide behind Jefferson. Big mistake. He was the first president to send American troops abroad to fight Muslim terrorists and to establish a permanent military presence in the Islamic world in pursuit of U.S. interests. He also was the first to fink out and appease them rather than fighting them.
I wanted to spank one of them who hijacked someone else's thread there, but, again, the comments wouldn't work for me. This time I was smart enough to save it before trying to post it and seeing it vanish. Here it is, just for the hell of it, just so I have something to show for the last half hour. This is the original thread.
And after reading I have two words for you: Fuck you.
What a tedious blowhard you are, Disenfranchised Voter.
Regardless of what the Preznit says, Muslims and Al Qaeda don’t have us for our Freedom, they hate us because we continue to perpetuate a policy of global imperialism. The book is a critque on that.
You're confusing why Osama hates us with why you hate us. I don't recall seeing a whole lot of "global imperialism" in Osama's writings. He doesn't give a crap about global imperialism or economics, beyond the oil Allah gave to the Muslims. He writes about Jews, Crusaders, and getting both of them out of what he defines as Muslim lands. He writes about bringing America to its knees, not to the Kyoto Protocol. He's quite the imperialist himself.
How about the fact that the US is one of the LEAST generous nations in the world? While we probably give more than any other country, we are also the RICHEST country in the world.
When disasters like the Indian Ocean tsumani or the recent Pakistan earthquake struck, no amount of money in the world could do anything to save lives in the crucial first weeks, when hundreds of thousands were at risk from disease, starvation, and succumbing to injuries.
No amount of promises of money from European capitals could save a single life.
An aircraft carrier escort group, with helicopters and medic crews and a fresh-water-generation plant and an efficient system of organization and command structure, and tens of thousands of strong arms, however, could make a difference. And did.
And who pays for all that? Does it also serve other functions? Of course. But it was there when help was needed -- because those evil, hegemonistic U.S. military bases were close by -- and the help was willingly lent.
Better for DV if they had died in their millions.
Give me a fucking break. Just about all of our actions in the Middle East are not done for humanitarian reasons, they are done to protect our interests. Back during the Cold war it was to stop the USSR and now it is mainly oil.
The (typical) attitude here is that protecting any given nation from a Soviet takeover during the Cold War was purely in the interest of the United States. The Poles and Hungarians and others who had the pleasure of being absorbed into the socialist utopia will tell you a bit about how much better overall the world would be if America had refused to stand up to the Soviet Union's bid for global empire.
DV says "one shouldn’t disregard other’s rights in order to act in their own interest." But he refuses to allow that the U.S. can be acting in its own interests AND protecting the human rights of others. Such acts are assumed to be purely selfish and only accidently beneficial to non-Americans.
Excuse me? At the request of them? The vast majority of our foreign military bases are set up at OUR reuqest. Not theirs. On top of this, the request comes with “benefits” which is basically a legal bribe.
Let's just admit it's never going to be possible to really sort out at whose "request" a military base gets built. Kuwait asks for a U.S. base, but maybe they were pressured to ask, eh?
But how interesting that we compensate the countries where we build the bases. So that when Americans up and leave a military post, the local population gets upset because their economy suffers, as Germany did a few years back. It may be "legal bribery," if you wish -- but in your twisted and obsessive world any American money spent overrseas is bribery, any that is withheld is stinginess.
Fascist? Dude, you need to take a political science class. You are grossly misusing the term fascism. YOu obviously have no idea what fascism is all about.
"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." [Robert O. Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism," 2004]
Seems to me Jimmy was technically right on the mark in calling Islamist terrorists "fascists."
What you need to realize is that you cannot defeat terrorism by dropping bombs on people. The only way to defeat terrorism is to erase the causes of said terrorism.
Yep. Give them what they want so they stop killing you. Bye-bye Israel.
For centuries our policies towards the middle east have been extremely fucked up. Period. We supported vicious dictators, killers, and death squads when it supported out interests. Yet we love freedom and democracy right? Talk about hypocrisy.
Centuries, eh? What centuries were those?
There is absolutely no excuse for us to have 70 international military bases around the world. America was never intended to be an empire and people who think we should need to take a fucking look at history and get a god damn clue.
Actually, the number of U.S. military bases worldwide is closer to 700 than 70. But you can't expect someone who can't tell "decades" from "centuries" to be very good at numbers.
But having a lot of military bases doesn't make you an empire. America has a military base in France: is France a mere colony of the wicked Americans?
If you don't end up absorbing these countries under your sovereign power, as the Romans and British did, you're not an empire: you're just a global military power. Which America certainly is, and there's every excuse in the world for it: policing the seas against pirates, for instance. Or making sure that Europe and Japan get their flow of fairly purchased Middle Eastern oil.
Now, if the position you wish to take is that Jefferson actually considered the US an Empire at its inception, I’d love to see you back that up with an argument…
Don't hide behind Jefferson. Big mistake. He was the first president to send American troops abroad to fight Muslim terrorists and to establish a permanent military presence in the Islamic world in pursuit of U.S. interests. He also was the first to fink out and appease them rather than fighting them.
