(ot) HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY AMERICANS!

[stinky]

Again, colonization is not something the U.S. practices.

Man, with all that background you have i'm surprised you'd make a statement so naive. Phillipines, Puerto Rico, anyone, Bueller?, Bueller? It can also be argued that last century the practice of colonizing metamorphed to a practice of inciting coup de tas to "win our friends", and that's just as much of a colonization as anything else. Why do you think our own backyard in south america is rebelling against US Hegemony?

[robtronik]

Again, colonization is not something the U.S. practices.

Man, with all that background you have i'm surprised you'd make a statement so naive. Phillipines, Puerto Rico, anyone, Bueller?, Bueller? It can also be argued that last century the practice of colonizing metamorphed to a practice of inciting coup de tas to "win our friends", and that's just as much of a colonization as anything else. Why do you think our own backyard in south america is rebelling against US Hegemony?

hegemony is different from colonization. We don't call the shots in how their governments are run and they don't report back the White House. If you want to call it influence and hegemony, then that's fine, but its not colonization. We should at least debate the merits of the terms correctly.

I'd say colonization officially died as a global policy when Ghandi made an example of the British.

rob.

[stinky]

I'll tell you mine. I'm 37, married and have a 4 year old. I graduated with a degree in Political Philosophy from CSUS in 96. I was a life long democrat until 9/11 and I saw what needed to be done but saw the eroding support from the democratic base on the need to change things in the middle east lest we suffer more from that region based on how it currently is. I've never served in the military, but have worked for my congressman (Democrat) and Lieutenant Governor of the state of California in his office. I've travelled the world and been to every continent except for australia - spending more time in Europe lately due to my job.

I read everything. Left, right, crazy wing party blogs, newspapers, and have a television but don't have cable. I don't watch TV except to watch movies on DVD. I live in Los Angeles CA and DJ and do events and hang around nothing but lefty people who adamently disagree with a lot of my political viewpoints described above. I feel the same way about their viewpoints (particularly if they are defended in the way that they have been defended in this thread).

Wow, i'm really impressed that with all that 'experience', you still have no real geopolitical understanding. Cause and effect. The United States brought all these 'terrorists' on itself by it's actions throughout the world. Don't you get tired of having defend yourself. You're in the minority in your beliefs. Not just abroad, but at home. Bush didn't win the election in 2000. He barely won the election in 2004. There's a pretty big argument for a coup de tat in our country.. why, because the voting machine are made by one company, Diebold, that's not beholden to any public standard. There were so many mistakes made in the last 2 elections, that election laws should be completely changed. I'm a pretty intelligent individual with enough experience to know the difference between what's bullshit and what's not. I wasn't born here and lived throughout the world myself.. i don't feel the need to spout off my credentials, because i like my privacy, and i have a right to. I'm not hiding behind anything because i stand by every statement i make, and will back up everything i say with reference. If you choose not to read those references, that's not my problem. But, don't be naive enough to think that you're government is looking out for you, because it's not. Everyone in every country should be critical of their governments.

"power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

[stinky]

hegemony is different from colonization. We don't call the shots in how their governments are run and they don't report back the White House. If you want to call it influence and hegemony, then that's fine, but its not colonization. We should at least debate the merits of the terms correctly.

I'd say colonization officially died as a global policy when Ghandi made an example of the British.

that's bullshit.. what do you think the WTO is for? The CIA has been calling the shots down there for a long time. Who do you think murdered Che? What about Farc and Colombia? What about Argentina and the Junta? Nothing happens in SA without the US say so... You can thank Monroe for that.. and Roosevelt took it a step further.

[noisetonepause]

colonizers always see their roles as "helping" to educate the poor, stupid heathens. what they fail to realize is that no one asked them for their damn help, and that self-determination will result in a stronger effort than forced "democracy". and historically, those being "helped" are usually just "helped" to death and those who live end up driving their "helpers" right the fuck out of their country. sound familiar?

this mindset has played itself out over and over and over throughout history. and yet countries still keep thinking the results will be different.

bah! read a frickin history book. the playbook is right there and no one bothers to read it.

Shiva, please: Have millions of babies. It's for the good of all mankind.

[robtronik]

hegemony is different from colonization. We don't call the shots in how their governments are run and they don't report back the White House. If you want to call it influence and hegemony, then that's fine, but its not colonization. We should at least debate the merits of the terms correctly.

I'd say colonization officially died as a global policy when Ghandi made an example of the British.

that's bullshit.. what do you think the WTO is for? The CIA has been calling the shots down there for a long time. Who do you think murdered Che? What about Farc and Colombia? What about Argentina and the Junta? Nothing happens in SA without the US say so... You can thank Monroe for that.. and Roosevelt took it a step further.

You are off your rocker. And an extremist. I betcha you have a lot of friends. LOL.

In any case, tell me again how we colonized those countries. I'd appreciate a bit more info.

secondly, I understand that people are pissed at the U.S. for former policy stances and interferences. Now Bush has taken a step to clear out all of that. Its democracy and no-terrorism and you are either with us or against us. Its pretty clear now. And public. And so far, after 4 years, some significant gains have occured. The question is whether we can see it through. I hope so. The Iraqi people want to see it through.

I hope to vote for someone in the U.S. for President that has the will that Bush did over these last four years.

Sorry if you disagree, that's your right. I'm glad, however, that it doesn't change much despite your opinion.

Thanks,

rob.

[forge]

Again, colonization is not something the U.S. practices.

Man, with all that background you have i'm surprised you'd make a statement so naive. Phillipines, Puerto Rico, anyone, Bueller?, Bueller? It can also be argued that last century the practice of colonizing metamorphed to a practice of inciting coup de tas to "win our friends", and that's just as much of a colonization as anything else. Why do you think our own backyard in south america is rebelling against US Hegemony?

pretty spot on there - and contrary to popular belief, the British empire actually functioned quite similarly - It actually came about in the beginning almost totally by accident because there was a power vacuum in India and the oppurtunity was seized by cunning merchants - not by military might

Alot of the history of the British empire was like that - it wasnt all marching and conquering

it was over a period of time as they got more intrenched they started to realise what it meant and some say not really until victorian times that it was really called an "empire" - and that was after alot of water under the Bridge

And likewise, it's really interesting to note that at the time of the American revolution the British were deeply involved in war with France and all the resources were going to that, they really couldnt afford to leave themselves so vulnerable by diverting resources to keep the American colony, especially while at the time the colony of Jamaica was earning them more money than the entire 13 states put together, plus they had just laid claim to the new "great southern land" Australia. So to be realistic, it wasnt so much that the colonials kicked them out, rather the British gave it up.

At the time the average British citizen was paying 18 times more tax than in the american colonies, and they actually didnt really have it that bad - the dispute was more of a political one

relevance of that?

well the biggest challenge of history is, apart from having to read SHITLOADS of different often conflicting sources to get a clear picture, you have to be able to really picture in an emphatic way what the REALITY of living in a certain time and place would have been like

this is why you get comparisons between Bush and a certain German fascist from the 30s, or current American policies being seen as "colonial" - because if you understand certain historical events in their context then you often find it's not as different as you might think

as noisetonepaws jujst quoted goebels with the "if the jew didnt exist we had to invent him" quote - you probably could not get a more apt description of what's going on now with this "war on terror"

To put it into perspective - this war on terror - apart from the Soldiers fighting on the ground, how many American casualites have there been since 9/11? Doesnt really sound like such a big threat to me - one big attack and nothing more since - remember it was nearly 5 years ago now.

The ones on London and Madrid probably wouldnt have happened if Iraq hadn't


the british had to live with a REAL terrorist threat for decades - same with the spanish - did they just start picking random countries and start invading?

"Prime minister, the IRA have just set off another very large bomb!"

"have they? hmmmm....right get the troops ready we're going to invade switzerland. Bastards have some damn fine chololate and I need a new watch."


There is no current real terrorist threat to american people or if there is, it's far more likely to have been made worse by the Iraq invasion

[djshiva]

colonizers always see their roles as "helping" to educate the poor, stupid heathens. what they fail to realize is that no one asked them for their damn help, and that self-determination will result in a stronger effort than forced "democracy". and historically, those being "helped" are usually just "helped" to death and those who live end up driving their "helpers" right the fuck out of their country. sound familiar?

this mindset has played itself out over and over and over throughout history. and yet countries still keep thinking the results will be different.

bah! read a frickin history book. the playbook is right there and no one bothers to read it.

Shiva, please: Have millions of babies. It's for the good of all mankind.

was that sarcasm? i wasn't sure. anyhow, no breedin' for this heathen! this womb is barren. my babies are pretty round pieces of vinyl...

'sides that...millions? ouch!

[stinky]

There is no current real terrorist threat to american people or if there is, it's far more likely to have been made worse by the Iraq invasion

Yes!! It's good to hear someone making sense for a change. I really hate the way rob makes everything out to be black and white. It's just really annoying because there's this middle ground that he never touches on in any of his arguments.

[robtronik]

Again, colonization is not something the U.S. practices.

Man, with all that background you have i'm surprised you'd make a statement so naive. Phillipines, Puerto Rico, anyone, Bueller?, Bueller? It can also be argued that last century the practice of colonizing metamorphed to a practice of inciting coup de tas to "win our friends", and that's just as much of a colonization as anything else. Why do you think our own backyard in south america is rebelling against US Hegemony?

There is no current real terrorist threat to american people or if there is, it's far more likely to have been made worse by the Iraq invasion

and, of course, this is exactly the train of thought that dominated before 9/11. We were attacked a few times before Iraq. We'll get attacked after Iraq as well. If you think the global jihad is about Iraq, then you don't understand the philosophy and goals of the islamic fascist.

If you think that there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the U.S. because they decided to call off their war, then you are sorely mistaken. I love how people can just brush off the total war we are waging on anything resembling Al Q. and how that wouldn't have played some part in deterring or preventing further attacks.

I'm very glad that none of your POV's are currently representative of what we should do against this very real threat.

rob.

[robtronik]

There is no current real terrorist threat to american people or if there is, it's far more likely to have been made worse by the Iraq invasion

Yes!! It's good to hear someone making sense for a change. I really hate the way rob makes everything out to be black and white. It's just really annoying because there's this middle ground that he never touches on in any of his arguments.

except that this doesn't make sense per my statement above.

rob.

[djshiva]

Man, with all that background you have i'm surprised you'd make a statement so naive. Phillipines, Puerto Rico, anyone, Bueller?, Bueller? It can also be argued that last century the practice of colonizing metamorphed to a practice of inciting coup de tas to "win our friends", and that's just as much of a colonization as anything else. Why do you think our own backyard in south america is rebelling against US Hegemony?

There is no current real terrorist threat to american people or if there is, it's far more likely to have been made worse by the Iraq invasion

and, of course, this is exactly the train of thought that dominated before 9/11. We were attacked a few times before Iraq. We'll get attacked after Iraq as well. If you think the global jihad is about Iraq, then you don't understand the philosophy and goals of the islamic fascist.

If you think that there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the U.S. because they decided to call off their war, then you are sorely mistaken. I love how people can just brush off the total war we are waging on anything resembling Al Q. and how that wouldn't have played some part in deterring or preventing further attacks.

I'm very glad that none of your POV's are currently representative of what we should do against this very real threat.

rob.

have you ever heard the phrase "digging the hole deeper"? honestly, that is what i consider our current foreign policy to be.

and it bothers me that so many americans fear the discussion about how our past foreign policy has brought about the current situation (including 9/11). this is a discussion worth having, if for no other reason than actually taking a critical look at how our government treats nations that have something it wants.

[forge]

Man, with all that background you have i'm surprised you'd make a statement so naive. Phillipines, Puerto Rico, anyone, Bueller?, Bueller? It can also be argued that last century the practice of colonizing metamorphed to a practice of inciting coup de tas to "win our friends", and that's just as much of a colonization as anything else. Why do you think our own backyard in south america is rebelling against US Hegemony?

There is no current real terrorist threat to american people or if there is, it's far more likely to have been made worse by the Iraq invasion

and, of course, this is exactly the train of thought that dominated before 9/11. We were attacked a few times before Iraq. We'll get attacked after Iraq as well. If you think the global jihad is about Iraq, then you don't understand the philosophy and goals of the islamic fascist.

If you think that there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the U.S. because they decided to call off their war, then you are sorely mistaken. I love how people can just brush off the total war we are waging on anything resembling Al Q. and how that wouldn't have played some part in deterring or preventing further attacks.

I'm very glad that none of your POV's are currently representative of what we should do against this very real threat.

rob.

but get it into perspective - you cant swat a fly by blowing up an ants nest

so "they" havent called off their war - then that means that they just havent actually succeeded in staging another single attack since! oooh - sounds like a terrifying threat to me - lock up your wives and children!

Even if it is US efforts that have prevented any further attacks, it is far more likely to be airport security and heightened awareness and certainly has nothing to do with Iraq.

[robtronik]

well, this is where you have to understand that it is a multi-front strategy and not a single solution strategy. We hit them in several ways:

1) remove training camps.
2) remove obvious threats like saddam
3) track them through intelligence (financial, communications, spying, infiltration)
4) we step up our internal diligence against threats
5) we do those other things I stated above (goals).

Let me ask you guys: what would you have done after 9/11?

Gimme some understanding of what you would have done if you were President of the U.S.

rob.

[forge]

2) remove obvious threats like saddam

but the POINT IS saddam was NO THREAT TO THE US WHATSOEVER - he was even a bit beyond being much of one to his own people by 2003

Let me ask you guys: what would you have done after 9/11?

Gimme some understanding of what you would have done if you were President of the U.S.

rob.

1. alot of the homeland stuff that actually did happen - and was probably all that was needed
2. go into afganistan where the actual training camps were
3. Not invade Iraq