didnt we "give back" japan and germany?Uzique wrote:
I think the main discernable difference is that our whole period of 'empire' is more than over, we've given it all back and to a certain extent (in certain areas) we've tried to make up for the oppression and unfairness we created there.
You never exactly conquered them in the first place, not in the sense of empire-building anyway. Expansionism is pretty different from babysitting a country whilst it re-establishes a political government and stabilises itself post-war in an economical and social sense. Mainly talking about Germany here... let's not get into a 'What America did in Japan' conversation.
Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-03 08:22:28)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
America had an empire?
Do people honestly read?
Quote myself: "America seem to be just entering their stage of fledling empire-building".
AMERICA HAD AN EMPIRE?!?!?!
Quote myself: "America seem to be just entering their stage of fledling empire-building".
AMERICA HAD AN EMPIRE?!?!?!
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
No, i didn't read, i just opened it and read usm's post at the top.Uzique wrote:
Do people honestly read?
Quote myself: "America seem to be just entering their stage of fledling empire-building".
AMERICA HAD AN EMPIRE?!?!?!
Thanks for continuing to support us in our expansionism. Your a good friend and we appreciate you being by our side nearly every time we "expand".Uzique wrote:
I think the main discernable difference is that our whole period of 'empire' is more than over, we've given it all back and to a certain extent (in certain areas) we've tried to make up for the oppression and unfairness we created there. I'm not saying we're Saints now, I'm just saying the modern world isn't still bitter at us in the same way that everyone doesn't hate Germany anymore because of Nazism in the 1940's. America however seems to be just entering its' fledgling empire stage, only this time you're doing it under the mock facade of all this stars-n-stripes liberty bullshit rhetoric. It's still expansionism and it's still colonisation, just this time you're doing it with a Bible and an image of Lady Liberty whereas we did it with redcoats and lots of wooden ships.usmarine wrote:
lol....coming from the UK that statement is funny. you must have forgot your past.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Now do you understand why some people in the world don't like the US very much?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I'm not really criticising expansionism, I'm not opposed to our 'alliance' either- I definitely have no animosity or bad feelings towards the USA.
But the 'Freedom Fighters' and 'Lady Liberty' stuff should probably go, it's been a contradiction since the founding of your country... think about it, your country was founded by a bunch of religious zealots that were biased and prejudiced, who also happened to be rich owners of thousands of slaves- and they created a nation based on the principles of liberty and freedom for all. Just cut the embarassing stuff and be fully acknowledged as the Great Britannia of the 21st century. The whole American 'attitude' that pervades throughout the recent conflicts (I'm talking about the "freeing the oppressed!" stuff) just seems like a scary Orwellian form of propaganda for the masses.
EURASIA HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ENEMY.
But the 'Freedom Fighters' and 'Lady Liberty' stuff should probably go, it's been a contradiction since the founding of your country... think about it, your country was founded by a bunch of religious zealots that were biased and prejudiced, who also happened to be rich owners of thousands of slaves- and they created a nation based on the principles of liberty and freedom for all. Just cut the embarassing stuff and be fully acknowledged as the Great Britannia of the 21st century. The whole American 'attitude' that pervades throughout the recent conflicts (I'm talking about the "freeing the oppressed!" stuff) just seems like a scary Orwellian form of propaganda for the masses.
EURASIA HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ENEMY.
Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-03 09:16:49)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
yes, thank youKmarion wrote:
Thanks for continuing to support us in our expansionism. Your a good friend and we appreciate you being by our side nearly every time we "expand".
speaking of empires, why dont you guys give argentina their silly little sheep island back?
Last edited by usmarine (2008-08-03 09:31:43)
Sam Adams bankrupted everything he touched. George Washington came from a poor background (albeit that changed when he got in good with the Faifaxes). Thomas Jefferson was against slavery from the start.His first draft of the Declaration of Independence included antislavery verbiage. In fact there were several attempts to stop the slave trade but it was the Crown that would not let this happen. Most of the founding fathers were against slavery. This is reflective in the relatively short amount of time it took us to abolish it.Uzique wrote:
I'm not really criticising expansionism, I'm not opposed to our 'alliance' either- I definitely have no animosity or bad feelings towards the USA.
But the 'Freedom Fighters' and 'Lady Liberty' stuff should probably go, it's been a contradiction since the founding of your country... think about it, your country was founded by a bunch of religious zealots that were biased and prejudiced, who also happened to be rich owners of thousands of slaves- and they created a nation based on the principles of liberty and freedom for all. Just cut the embarassing stuff and be fully acknowledged as the Great Britannia of the 21st century. The whole American 'attitude' that pervades throughout the recent conflicts (I'm talking about the "freeing the oppressed!" stuff) just seems like a scary Orwellian form of propaganda for the masses.
EURASIA HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ENEMY.
If you actually take the time to read what they were saying at the time you might have a better understanding of their sentiment.
While it may be true that our founders were religious they were also conscious of the need to keep religion out of government. It's plainly written in the Constitution. When George Washington was sworn in he added "so help me god" for himself. I'm with you on the nonsense of freeing the oppressed. It violates the constitution. However, nearly all of our actions have at least attempted to show that without action their is a security risk. Another key difference you did not mention when comparing the British Empire to modern day America.“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”
-George Washington
"My opinion against it [slavery] has always been known... Never in my life did I own a slave."
-John Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. President. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1854), vol IX pp. 92-93. In a letter to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801.
"Why keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil."
-Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1898), Vol. II, pg. 231.
"As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they ...curse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery]."
-John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution and Governor of Pennsylvania. Charles J. Stille, The Life and Times of John Dickinson (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1898) p. 324.
"That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent as well as unjust and perhaps impious part."
-John Jay, President of Continental Congress, Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Governor of New York. Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1891), Vol. III, pp. 168-169. In a letter to Dr. Richard Price on Sep. 27, 1785.
"Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts... by agreeing to this duty."
-Richard Henry Lee, President of Continental Congress and Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee and His Correspondence With the Most Distinguised Men in America and Europe (Philadelphia: H.C. Carey and I. Lea, 1825), Vol. I, pp. 17-19. The first speech of Richard Henry Lee in the House of Burgesses.
"it ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master."
-Luther Martin, Constitutional Convention Delegate. James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. III, pg. 211.
"Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity... It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men."
-Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates From the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States, Assembled at Philadelphia, on the First Day of January, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-Four... (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24. "To the Citizens of the United States."
"Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law... The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all."
-James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court Justice. James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, Robert Green McCloskey, editor (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), Vol. II, pg. 605.
"It is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others...and take away their liberty by no better right than superior force."
-John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), p. 81, "Lectures on Moral Philosophy."
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Actually France, Spain, Britain and Argentina discovered them aroundabout the same time - and all made equal claims to the discovery - and it was the USA who first destroyed the Argentinian claim to the islands;usmarine wrote:
speaking of empires, why dont you guys give argentina their silly little sheep island back?
"The United Kingdom returned to the islands in 1833 following the destruction of the Argentine settlement at Puerto Luis by the American sloop USS Lexington".
Oops!
So the islands were pretty much fair game; it wasn't a case of empire-conquest, it was a naval discovery.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
...that you fought a war over.Uzique wrote:
it was a naval discovery.
Because they made a claim to the islands based purely on geographic locality... even though Europeans first discovered the islands (uninhabited, may I add).usmarine wrote:
...that you fought a war over.Uzique wrote:
it was a naval discovery.
Are you seriously arguing over this now in a thread about American history? My point from the start was that our period of expanding and building empire is more than over (the Falklands were not an empire-style takeover or forced occupation, NO ONE WAS THERE BEFORE US)- and my contention was that now America are ushering in their own age of foreign occupancy under this thin veil of 'liberty' and 'freedom fighting'. Forcing democracy on people is self-contradictory, it basically is the same thing as annexation :p.
Also, your logic supports my claim that the war in Iraq/Iran is the American form of empire-building. If fighting a war over a foreign country is equal to conquering it and taking it over, then my my you Americans are doing a good job on your missions into the Middle-East!
Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-03 10:00:01)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
We're definitely doing the babysitting in Iraq and Afghanistan.Uzique wrote:
You never exactly conquered them in the first place, not in the sense of empire-building anyway. Expansionism is pretty different from babysitting a country whilst it re-establishes a political government and stabilises itself post-war in an economical and social sense. Mainly talking about Germany here... let's not get into a 'What America did in Japan' conversation.
you say america when you should be saying WE is my point.
If their is to be a thin veil it would be under the idea of national security. That freedom fighter crap is only heard after the fact.Uzique wrote:
Because they made a claim to the islands based purely on geographic locality... even though Europeans first discovered the islands (uninhabited, may I add).usmarine wrote:
...that you fought a war over.Uzique wrote:
it was a naval discovery.
Are you seriously arguing over this now in a thread about American history? My point from the start was that our period of expanding and building empire is more than over (the Falklands were not an empire-style takeover or forced occupation, NO ONE WAS THERE BEFORE US)- and my contention was that now America are ushering in their own age of foreign occupancy under this thin veil of 'liberty' and 'freedom fighting'. Forcing democracy on people is self-contradictory, it basically is the same thing as annexation :p.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Germany and Japan were involved in world-wide conflict and were completely crushed as countries; in terms of morale, economy, infrastructure, political system and law etc. Less so in the case of Japan, but they were Axis allies and thus you had the same reason/motive for occupancy. Iraq and Iran were 'stable' countries in terms of worldwide politics, and thus didn't need babysitting in the same ways that countries such as Germany did after being completely annihilated. Let's not descend into the bottomless debate of WMD's and the necessity to invade based on national / world security... the only point I am contending here is that neither Iran or Iraq were unstable or destroyed to the extent that Germany was post-1945. They had a system of government and an economy (regardless of the quality of both, the country was operating at a basic level without need for intervention).Turquoise wrote:
We're definitely doing the babysitting in Iraq and Afghanistan.Uzique wrote:
You never exactly conquered them in the first place, not in the sense of empire-building anyway. Expansionism is pretty different from babysitting a country whilst it re-establishes a political government and stabilises itself post-war in an economical and social sense. Mainly talking about Germany here... let's not get into a 'What America did in Japan' conversation.
It's really hard to make a point that hits home to an American because I really do think with the more patriotic types that you're talking to a rather indoctrinated and mindwashed person. No offense intended but you guys are drilled like robots since kindergarten on how great and mighty your country is- almost making it seem acceptable to each and every one of your citizens that you should be the self-righteous worldpolice. The big guys up top though - with their questionable investments and involvement in trans-national corporations - I'm sure they're working to an altogether more expansionist and 'profitable' agenda .
I could go and write an essay on how the majority of the UK were opposed to all involvement in the Middle-East at the time of declaration-- even referendums were drafted up and talked about and so on. 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.usmarine wrote:
you say america when you should be saying WE is my point.
Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-03 10:14:30)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
lolUzique wrote:
No offense intended but you guys are drilled like robots since kindergarten on how great and mighty your country is
todays lesson jimmy is why our country sucks and that your future will be a mess.
get a grip
there were protests here also.Uzique wrote:
more words
but the fact in which you are trying ever so hard to dodge is that you have to say WE, because well, you did go. simple as that.
I agree with you on the brainwashed thing. I despise patriotism, and not just blind pride in America. If you let pride in your country override your logic and common sense, you're in for some serious trouble.Uzique wrote:
Germany and Japan were involved in world-wide conflict and were completely crushed as countries; in terms of morale, economy, infrastructure, political system and law etc. Iraq and Iran were 'stable' countries in terms of worldwide politics, and thus didn't need babysitting in the same ways that countries such as Germany did after being completely annihilated. Let's not descend into the bottomless debate of WMD's and the necessity to invade based on national / world security... the only point I am contending here is that neither Iran or Iraq were unstable or destroyed to the extent that Germany was post-1945. They had a system of government and an economy (regardless of the quality of both, the country was operating at a basic level without need for intervention).Turquoise wrote:
We're definitely doing the babysitting in Iraq and Afghanistan.Uzique wrote:
You never exactly conquered them in the first place, not in the sense of empire-building anyway. Expansionism is pretty different from babysitting a country whilst it re-establishes a political government and stabilises itself post-war in an economical and social sense. Mainly talking about Germany here... let's not get into a 'What America did in Japan' conversation.
It's really hard to make a point that hits home to an American because I really do think with the more patriotic types that you're talking to a rather indoctrinated and mindwashed person. No offense intended but you guys are drilled like robots since kindergarten on how great and mighty your country is- almost making it seem acceptable to each and every one of your citizens that you should be the self-righteous worldpolice. The big guys up top though - with their questionable investments and involvement in trans-national corporations - I'm sure they're working to an altogether more expansionist and 'profitable' agenda .
The point I was making is that our invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan could both be seen as imperialist. I'm not necessarily saying I agree with this assessment for Afghanistan, but... we did conquer both countries, and we're essentially providing the defense for both. If we left either of them today, they'd probably fall shortly afterwards.
As a side note, you seem to underestimate Blair's own imperialist tendencies. He was lobbying just as hard for invading Iraq as Bush was.
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-08-03 10:21:12)
They'd fall shortly afterwards because we (to please marine ) destroyed them. They were fine before and didn't need babysitting or intervention, that's my point that argues towards the seemingly imperialist aggression. It's a completely different scenario to post-WWII Germany, which was a real mess because of a series of events that they precipitated. Here we dived in first with our own (fabricated?) reasons and motives, and we made the real mess out of the countries. Iraq would fail today as a democracy, but it was fine as a country under dictatorial rule. I'm not saying it was a thrilling place to live, nor am I saying all of the citizens compared it to their ideal home, but it wasn't exactly crumbling is what I'm trying to say. Let's not nitpick this fundamental point, even if Iraq was slip-sliding into economic doom and gloom, the country did not need foreign intervention.
Yes Marine I do acknowledge that nowadays we seem to be the lapdog to America in their foreign involvements. I can't argue against that- as you said we physically did go there and we are physically implicated in what's going on in the Middle-East nowadays. However the campaigns and decisions are made by America first and foremost-- we very much are lapdogs in this process- so it doesn't really detract from my point that the USA is becoming increasingly imperialist. I don't really think you can imply that the UK are also trying to re-establish any form of empire building, to leap to that conclusion would be like saying Japan wanted annex and control the British Isles in WW2. We're allies but I'm quite sure our individual reasons and motives are different... in this modern case, America is 'national security / freedom fighting' (which I'd term as the politician-spun reasons) and expansion, and the UK is simply the same media/politic created 'OMG TERRORISM!' threat and the ostensible reason of maintaining a healthy relationship with a national friend.
Yes Marine I do acknowledge that nowadays we seem to be the lapdog to America in their foreign involvements. I can't argue against that- as you said we physically did go there and we are physically implicated in what's going on in the Middle-East nowadays. However the campaigns and decisions are made by America first and foremost-- we very much are lapdogs in this process- so it doesn't really detract from my point that the USA is becoming increasingly imperialist. I don't really think you can imply that the UK are also trying to re-establish any form of empire building, to leap to that conclusion would be like saying Japan wanted annex and control the British Isles in WW2. We're allies but I'm quite sure our individual reasons and motives are different... in this modern case, America is 'national security / freedom fighting' (which I'd term as the politician-spun reasons) and expansion, and the UK is simply the same media/politic created 'OMG TERRORISM!' threat and the ostensible reason of maintaining a healthy relationship with a national friend.
Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-03 10:25:30)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
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.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.
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.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Iraq was stable. Afghanistan.... sort of... Afghanistan had more of a terror connection than Iraq did. Granted, Saudi Arabia was the origin of the actual 9/11 hijackers. Of course, we both know why we keep the kid gloves on when we deal with those bastards.Uzique wrote:
They'd fall shortly afterwards because we (to please marine ) destroyed them. They were fine before and didn't need babysitting or intervention, that's my point that argues towards the seemingly imperialist aggression. It's a completely different scenario to post-WWII Germany, which was a real mess because of a series of events that they precipitated. Here we dived in first with our own (fabricated?) reasons and motives, and we made the real mess out of the countries. Iraq would fail today as a democracy, but it was fine as a country under dictatorial rule. I'm not saying it was a thrilling place to live, nor am I saying all of the citizens compared it to their ideal home, but it wasn't exactly crumbling is what I'm trying to say.
I wouldn't suggest you fabricated reasons for fighting Germany. You had a very real threat next to you as the Nazies were conquering all of your neighbors. You really should've intervened earlier, but then again, we probably should have as well.
At this point, I think America is going to back off from the imperialism thing. We got pretty burned by Iraq, and Pakistan is one of the few countries we have any real reason to keep a close eye on now.Uzique wrote:
Yes Marine I do acknowledge that nowadays we seem to be the lapdog to America in their foreign involvements. I can't argue against that- as you said we physically did go there and we are physically implicated in what's going on in nowadays. However the campaigns and decisions are made by America first and foremost-- we very much are lapdogs in this process- so it doesn't really detract from my point that the USA is becoming increasingly imperialist. I don't really think you can imply that the UK are also trying to re-establish any form of empire building, to leap to that conclusion would be like saying Japan wanted annex and control the British Isles in WW2. We're allies but I'm quite sure our individual reasons and motives are different... in this modern case, America is 'national security / freedom fighting' (which I'd term as the politician-spun reasons) and expansion, and the UK is simply the same media/politic created 'OMG TERRORISM!' threat and the ostensible reason of maintaining a healthy relationship with a national friend.
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.Kmarion wrote:
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.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.
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.
You mention brainwashed and reliance on statistics in the same sentence. Irony .Kmarion wrote:
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.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.
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.
Kmarion my analysis of our reasons obviously didn't mention the claimed 'reason' for both of our involvement- you've already mentioned it so I didn't think I'd need to recycle any of that political garbage that was spun. WMD's, threat to the Western World, terrorism, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, terrorism, there will be more attacks, terrorism, fear, no one is safe, they hate freedom, terrorism yada yada ad infinitum. Perhaps that was the genuine and sole reason why we went there and did what we did but I'm skeptical. I don't follow that sensationalism and paranoia parade. Things like the 'terrorist alert meter' are pretty much comparable to agitprop you'd find in a totalitarian state in my opinion-- absolutely ludricrous concepts.
I really can't defend the UK on their recent military actions, but still I must reiterate that this entire conversation now is a huge digression from the sole contention that America are now the new empire, the UK had its turn and now you guys are running the show. I can't justify us following you into conflicts as being right/wrong, and I don't care to... this thread isn't about the coalition or any involvements in the Middle-East. It's about interpreting your military actions in the last century as being more and more aggressively imperialist in nature. 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.
@ Turquoise: I was dubiously saying 'fabricated' as to our reasons for this modern conflict- I'm not sure anyone can contend the need for action in Europe circa 1935-1940 . And your point about Afghanistan having strong links to terror networks still doesn't change my point that neither Afghanistan, Iraq nor Iran need/will need our intervention or 'rescue' because of their current climate. A government that has strong links to Islamic fundamentalism doesn't mean that the country is going to self-destruct. Afghanistan has a long history of war of course, but one could argue that they were all pretty much made much worse by Western and Russian intervention. So it's a big cycle that still ends up at the same argument that none of these damn countries need our involvement or our messing around in the first place, they can deal with their own problems without posing a global threat. Even if the fundamentalists won out in one of these nations, whose to say that an Islamic state would mean World War III? Actually please don't answer that question on this Forum, I've seen more than enough threads/posts on Islam to last me a lifetime. Consider it purely rhetorical.
Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-03 10:39:55)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/