BF2S Forums Time for me to take my lumps.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Sadly we had to follow you in because the reality of today's political climate is that you Americans are the new British Empire, and we couldn't afford to place our bets anywhere else than firmly on your side in the Coalition. There is no 'real' element of "we" here- British intelligence and British government agencies didn't feel threatened by any mention of WMD's in Iraq/Iran-- in all likelihoods we wouldn't even come under attack from them anyway; the primary target is obviously the USA in all circumstances. We follow you in because our countries literally are allies in the sense of the word... politically, economically and socially/attitude wise. We're straying from the real point of this thread here, I'd like to return to my original point rather than sink into the drab and tireless arguing over Iraq/Iran/WMD's and just say that we in the UK are pretty much watching you Americans as our allies walk into an era of worldwide policing that is directly comparable (when you physically intervene on foreign soils) to empire building and (secretly?) serving your own private interests, whether they be financial or political.

So you invaded a sovereign nation to protect your political, economic, and social interest. Shit, at least we have the attacks on our nation to explain some of our overt actions. Yours is simply to maintain the alliance.

If you can get over the idea of Americans being brainwashed you might actually see that a good portion of us want nothing to do with the policies of this administration and congress. Read a poll sometime.

True, but we did re-elect Bush.  That means a little over half of the country was brainwashed enough to think that Kerry was even worse.

Uzique wrote:

You mention brainwashed and reliance on statistics in the same sentence. Irony .

Uzique wrote:

Trust me Americans weren't alone that day in shock and horror watching those events unfold.

Perhaps for the same similarities and shared alliances we share that I stated earlier; social/societal, economical, political etc. we felt the exact same threat and the exact same fear. Our government didn't spin it into such a huge war-trigger as your administration did but again I'm really not surprised that we followed you in based purely on those surface provocations. Your own government and media said it yourself, that it wasn't just an attack on America- it was an attack on the Western world and an attack on the ideals of freedom. We can look back on that now with skepticism but please don't think for a second that the UK did not share your pain (and fear) during this time. We had our own problems with terrorist attacks also, although I think it is note-worthy that our London bombings were not turned into such a justification for military aggression as the American anti-terror campaign was. It's not very logical to me personally to annihilate two entire countries for the purpose of fighting an underground network. I know that the governments of these countries were funding the organisations etc... but still, it really is over-the-top.

Yet again I tirelessly say that this thread isn't about Iran/Iraq; please interpret and read my posts as an explanation from the point of view regarding empire-building. I can safely say that the UK shared your sentiments post-9/11, but it was your generals and your administration that decided the way to tackle terrorism was to spread the American stars'n'stripes all over a map of the Middle-East.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Explain to me why you think Kerry was worse.

Well for one he lost..lol

What message did he sell you? Kerry was two faced to the extreme. It was obvious to everyone. He never took a real position on anything. People had no idea of what he stood for. I should hope you know by now that he had no intention of getting out of Iraq. The way you keep repeating the idea of everyone who voted for Bush is for the war leads me to think that you don't.

I realize that, but the reason why I thought Kerry was better was because of his more moderate stances on things.  Yes, he was a flip-flopper, but so is Bush.  Name me one presidential candidate in the last 20 years who actually won his party's nomination that wasn't a flip-flopper.

Yes, Kerry had a liberal voting record.  Yes, he lacked charisma.  But seriously, you think the same guy who spent a large portion of his first term amassing more debt with a Republican Congress than the last few presidents combined was BETTER than Kerry?

Uzique wrote:

As I said before I acknowledge and realise that American public opinion has (drastically?) changed, and I posted a possible interpretation as to why in an earlier post:

Uzique wrote:

As Turquoise said nowadays after the huge quagmire that is Iraq you guys will stop and be more cautious- but really there's only so far you could drive an imperialist agenda under the facade of 'freedom fighting' and 'protecting our own national security and interests'. Even if Iraq is the pinnacle and the most blatent example of American expansionism... it's still enough really. In today climate, especially in terms of global economics, once you hold the main oil-deposits left in the world as well as a country (or two) with some very valuable resources... pretty much a success story for your administration.

Sure the American people are starting to question the reasons for still being involved in Iraq/Afghanistan, and the general concensus may be slowly but surely turning around to the idea of a final resolution and pullout from Iraq... but to return to the basis of this thread, from an imperial viewpoint this could be interpreted as 'the American people have seen through the shallow justifications for the Iraq war*, and now the glaring teeth of possible imperialism have been shown, they want out'. To repeat what I said earlier though, in the event that the latest American military conflicts were driven by private interests (e.g. financial / economical, oil and resources), this turnaround in popular attitude doesn't really matter because the administration have already got what they went there for (if in this hypothetical situation that is their real reason... trying not to sound too conspiratorial here as I don't follow that nonsense either). I'm just considering how the more recent actions of the last century could be interpreted and seen as empire-building, that is all. I've Karma'd you previously even to say that I am far from stupid enough to believe all Americans are war-mongerers and support this conflict you're involved in.

*Afghanistan was somewhat justified with the Bin Laden manhunt, but Iraq was really pushing it with the 'we're moving on to the next country... errr it has WMD's! parade. Especially when the world's top experts and the panel of scientists failed to find any substantial evidence of said WMD's. That really was the point when the pretentions of the Iraq war dissolved, possibly leading to the Imperialist scrutiny.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-08-03 11:35:01)

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Being antiwar used to be a conservative thing.  It's a shame Ron Paul is one of the few conservatives that fits that description now.

and Conservative used to be a Democratic thing. Of course so did slavery..lol. We've got to stop marrying ourselves to a "political club".

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Who else thinks of Fergie when reading this thread title?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Who else thinks of Fergie when reading this thread title?

usmarine wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Who else thinks of Fergie when reading this thread title?

i was thinking this actually.  sounds the same as fergie tbh