[J m HofMarN]

Renegade-

1 So it's unfair to compare something that happened 150 years in the past to something that happened fifty or a hundred years in the past? Well darn, clearly those rules do work in your favor. The U.S. really toned down their campaign of genocide and repression against natives and blacks during the twentieth century. It sure is a shame I'm not allowed to point out that while the Soviet leaders were kids starving and freezing in the streets of Moscow under the Czar our national past time was lynching black folks and shooting at injuns.

2: If a crime is not being kept secret, than why is it being allowed to occur again even as we speak? Example: The arming of Egypt and the Zionist Entity, as well as the funding of coups against President Hugo Chavez?

3: I still don't see how you can discount the possibility by simply saying we wouldn't do that. If the U.S. didn't order the war they may as well have. The U.S. actually fought in the war, attacking the Iranian navy and shooting down and Iranian civilian plane. And once again I state clearly that the U.S. gave Saddam chemical and biological weapons, as well as allowing him ot deploy these.

4: Kennedy was guilty of begining Vietnam and he got what he had coming for it. Chickens coming home to roost, as Malcolm X said. Nixon however comitted attrocities against African Americans and progressive groups, so he is far, far worse than most other presidents of the past half century. Now the VietMinh were indeed invaders, but they had the support of the south vietnamese people. The Viet Cong who began the war were local revolutionairies who asked the VietMinh for help.

Vietnam was a nation in the grip of imperialism before Ho Chi Minh liberated it from the French. After that the U.S. decided he was a bad guy and so Vietnam was split in half, which it had never been before. We took over South Vietnam, transfering it from French to American ownership, while North Vietnam was free. In the end it was right for Ho Chi Minh to wrest the remainder of his nation from imperialist hands.

5: A gilded cage is still a cage. Why do you think South Koreans often protest against the U.S. presence? And mixing communism with nationalism is a way to strike down imperialism, so of course I like Ho Chi Minh. In what way was he an imperialist?

6: If that's the premise you're basing your argument off theres not much I can say. You just seem to think that every act of imperialism we go into is either just an accident or completely justified.

7: We made Syria leave Lebanon because we were hoping to control Lebanon. It may have worked out to Lebanon's benefit but it had more to do with the U.S. wanting another territory and being pissed at Syria.

[Renegade]

Renegade-

1 So it's unfair to compare something that happened 150 years in the past to something that happened fifty or a hundred years in the past? Well darn, clearly those rules do work in your favor. The U.S. really toned down their campaign of genocide and repression against natives and blacks during the twentieth century. It sure is a shame I'm not allowed to point out that while the Soviet leaders were kids starving and freezing in the streets of Moscow under the Czar our national past time was lynching black folks and shooting at injuns.

2: If a crime is not being kept secret, than why is it being allowed to occur again even as we speak? Example: The arming of Egypt and the Zionist Entity, as well as the funding of coups against President Hugo Chavez?

3: I still don't see how you can discount the possibility by simply saying we wouldn't do that. If the U.S. didn't order the war they may as well have. The U.S. actually fought in the war, attacking the Iranian navy and shooting down and Iranian civilian plane. And once again I state clearly that the U.S. gave Saddam chemical and biological weapons, as well as  allowing him ot deploy these.

4: Kennedy was guilty of begining Vietnam and he got what he had coming for it. Chickens coming home to roost, as Malcolm X said. Nixon however comitted attrocities against African Americans and progressive groups, so he is far, far worse than most other presidents of the past half century. Now the VietMinh were indeed invaders, but they had the support of the south vietnamese people. The Viet Cong who began the war were local revolutionairies who asked the VietMinh for help.

Vietnam was a nation in the grip of imperialism before Ho Chi Minh liberated it from the French. After that the U.S. decided he was a bad guy and so Vietnam was split in half, which it had never been before. We took over South Vietnam, transfering it from French to American ownership, while North Vietnam was free. In the end it was right for Ho Chi Minh to wrest the remainder of his nation from imperialist hands.

5: A gilded cage is still a cage. Why do you think South Koreans often protest against the U.S. presence? And mixing communism with nationalism is a way to strike down imperialism, so of course I like Ho Chi Minh. In what way was he an imperialist?

6: If that's the premise you're basing your argument off theres not much I can say. You just seem to think that every act of imperialism we go into is either just an accident or completely justified.

7: We made Syria leave Lebanon because we were hoping to control Lebanon. It may have worked out to Lebanon's benefit but it had more to do with the U.S. wanting another territory and being pissed at Syria.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) I'm not arguing this nemore. Your obviously just disregarding what I'm saying and continung your own point. Under your argument anyone is equal to the united states including hitler because of what we did to the Indians, and America can never do anythin about it. I'm done with this point cause you'll just keep repeating how America's acts up to the 18th century are still = to the gulags in the mid 1900's so therefor there equal.

2) That's not my point, the point was you said that Iran Contra was a secret, when its not. It was WHEN it happened, but after it was found out, it became common public knowledge, and thats all i'm arguing with this point.

3) Your not reading my posts again so I'm stopping with this point. You keep repeating the same thing over and over and over again. I'll say it for the last time, we saw Iraq losing the war slowly, so we decided to arm them to prevent them fully losing to Iran. That's what happened period. There was no desire for Iraq invade Iran previously or for them to win the war. And later we gave Iran some weapons though that was for the contras mostly and didn't effect the war like it did with giving weapons to Iraq.

4) Actually Malcolm X said that I think because Kennedy had promised blacks more rights and had failed to deliver at that point. Anyway, you seem like you have something against our "fascist" govt, but you have nothing against dictators as long as they fit your description of a good idealogy. It's amazing that you support Castro/Minh (and prolly every other communist leader) with their tyranny as long as there communists but if any other country with a different idealogy has even a democracy, its still not good nuff.

5) They can protest all they want, our bases their protected them for decades and if we weren't their to protect them, they'd be, like N Korea, starving to death. I don't care what the argument is against our involvement into S. Korea, there is nobody who can argue that there worst off now then they would be with N Korea. If you should be mad at anyone, it should be China, for interfering and preventing a fully free Korea. Mihn WAS a imperialist, he invaded other nations at will (ie. Cambodia), and again if he had the chance would of done more. You're failing to realize that most of these countries like Castro and such, are not imperialist because of choice, but because they aren't capable of taking over anyone else.

6) That's not even what I said.. my point was those acts ARENT imperialistic to begin with. We don't plan on occupying countries or using the military to control them because we know that will lead to our own downfall. Things like Somalia/Vietnam and the such are never going to be successful and those are examples of why we ARENT an imperialistic country. The only way the US can be considered imperialistic is by loosely using the term and saying anyone who sells arms to a country is imperliastic, which would mean every European Country/China/Russia/N Korea/Etc are also imperialistic because they all do the same thing. Under your argument, giving weapons to Great Britain in 1940 (before we entered the war) is also imperialism.

7) We "want" lebanon? We do? The country has no oil, no resources of interest, no desirable reason to "want it". Wake up, America acts more based on idealogy than it does on necessary gain. Just like during the Cold War, most of the places we went to had nothing to do with us wanting the country or its goods, but rather preventing a contrary idealogy from taking power. And like I said, even though you may disagree with our reasons, just like with Lebonon/Syria, it is beneficial to the country we are helping as it usually ends up being. This isn't a mistake, its because when a country supports capatalism and at times freedom, then you will see a end result that is a good product.

[Rhubarb]

Rhubard, you are without doubt one of the best elements active in the debate club.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hee, thanks. I didn't think anyone had noticed that post.

[Renegade]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I found this entertaining as well ... although I don't know what flag that is he's holding

[Slade]

All I see is "user posted image."

Renegade: I'd like to point out that you're just as guilty of backpedaling and argument changing, Renegade. First you said that the United States wasn't imperialist, then you changed your point and said "Well, everybody else is too!"

And no, most liberals are aware that Kennedy was ready to pull the troops out of Viet Nam when he was assassinated, and Ford decided to send more in after the Gulf of Tonkin hoax which he used as a ploy.

The point there was about competition with "communists." The US wanted to be the only super power in the world, but couldn't go into open war with the other powers because of the risk of nuclear war, so the powers fought vicariously through small countries that could be manipulated. The Soviet Union guns to Iran, so we gave guns to Iraq. China gave guns to North Korea and North Viet Nam, so we gave guns and eventually troops to Sout Korea and 'Nam.

And if you don't think the US wanted to be an "imperial power," look at Hawaii and Panama for starters for proof otherwise.

But you're both being irritatingly redundant, and I think we should get back to War against Iran. Will it happen? If so, how? If not, why?

I say we don't have the man power, and while the current administration is ruthless, it's not entirely stupid and wouldn't risk something like it.

[J m HofMarN]

Renegade-

1: So, previously you said that everyone does the same thing we do. And yet, in some way, we're still better than everyone else even though we admittedly do the same stuff? You think just because it happened a little longer ago that makes it ok? The defeat of fascism changed the German perspective. They're now a far different country than they were. The U.S. policies have not yet been crushed like those of the nazis and so we're still the same as we were a hundred years ago.

2: Go out and ask anyone if the American government ever sold arms to Iran and central American terrorists. See how common this knowledge is.

3: So you're saying all of that was ethical and not at all imperialist?

4: Castro and Minh both won their revolutions and then their nations settled down and went about bettering the conditions of their people. The U.S. won its revolution and quickly monopolized power to rich white landowning males. It then went on to commit genocide against two racial minorities, and when it was done raping them it went after anyone else in the world who looked at it wrong. But I'm sorry, I'm just a dirty communist for thinking that.

5: Vietnam invaded Cambodia? When was this? Also, do you think it's right that South Korea has to depend on the U.S. for its existence? Dosn't that make it more or less a territory? Imperialism dosn't always wear an ugly face.

6: The arms sale is only part of it. What about all the invasions and military interventions? We may be trying to do it for a good reason but it's still imperialism. The Nazis often claimed that they were liberating the countries they took over or that they'd been attacked and that justified it to the populace. Imperialists never come out and admit it and there'll always be people willing to believe their lies.

7: Yes, but Lebanon is a country that we can keep from falling to the domino effect of Islamic radicalism. Just like Vietnam was. And the constant assaults on communism were done because the capitalists knew that if the workers in the U.S. saw communism working they would revolt. Part of profiting is survival, and to maintain their survival the rich rulers of America had to destroy communism. This may not have always directly profited them, but it was necessary for them.

The flag I'm holding is the internationally recognized terrorist flag. Any time you see it it probably means the person waving it is a terrorist, which is why it dosnt appear often in the states.

[Slade]

About your last 4th point, I don't think it's fair to blame only the American colonies for the senseless brutality against the "native Americans." France and Spain held as much territory and surely it wasn't all legitimately bought from the indiginous peoples.

[J m HofMarN]

That's true, by far the worst for it were the Spanish, but the Americans take a close second.

[Kirby]

But Jm, you still keep on ignoring Renagades point on how you're comparing Colonial America with Modern (well, not so now) Russia. It's comparing apples with fossils.

[Renegade]

Renegade: I'd like to point out that you're just as guilty of backpedaling and argument changing, Renegade. First you said that the United States wasn't imperialist, then you changed your point and said "Well, everybody else is too!"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No i'm not, I'm saying assuming we take HIS definition of imperialism, than almost EVERY nation is imperialistc. I never said I believe that we're imperialistic.. big difference.

I can't tell if people actually read my posts or sorta take a couple words out of it and make a counter argument..

[J m HofMarN]

I hardly see what the difference is. Russia was just starting out under a new form of government and so was the U.S. The U.S. is still ruled by the same government that killed the indians and sold slaves, whereas the USSR has changed governments.

As for the U.S. not being imperialist, you claim that their policies are beneficial, but that dosn't stop them from being imperialist. It's that kind of ends justifies the means logic that creates imperialism.

"Let's enslave the savages. We'll make money from their hard work and they'll become civilized for their trouble -- a good time will be had by all!"

[Renegade]

Quote

1: So, previously you said that everyone does the same thing we do. And yet, in some way, we're still better than everyone else even though we admittedly do the same stuff? You think just because it happened a little longer ago that makes it ok? The defeat of fascism changed the German perspective. They're now a far different country than they were. The U.S. policies have not yet been crushed like those of the nazis and so we're still the same as we were a hundred years ago.

No, I said we do the same thing everyone else does in terms of selling weapons to people we like, trading with people we like etc. And again putting words in my mouth. Sometimes I wonder if its just like, you assume what you THINK i believe and make a counter to it, or actually read my post. I NEVER said what we did was "ok", I said it was century(s) ago, and impossible to compare to something that happened in this generation. But apparently in the year 3000, if America is a pacifict, nation it'll still be blamed for slavery under your argument.

Quote

2: Go out and ask anyone if the American government ever sold arms to Iran and central American terrorists. See how common this knowledge is.

Sure probably, but irrelevent. My point with contras has never been more than to prove that contras are public knowledge. Whether the public learns this bit of info is up to them, but its in no way a secret what we did.

Quote

3: So you're saying all of that was ethical and not at all imperialist?

Again, questioning if you read my posts or just take 2 words from my paragraphs and make a counter. I have already stated, I NEVER asserted the ethical or moral acceptance of what was done, I said IT WASNT IMPERIALISM. And again, giving weapons to a side of an army, is not imperialism by definition, unless you think giving ANY form of aid to another country is imperialism (even though you won't gain anything economically/terrororial). If you think thats imperialism, than FDR was also doing imperialism by giving Britain weapons before we entered WWII. Also, Russia, China, Germany, Britain, France etc would also be considered imperialistic under your definition for selling weapons to others/allies [/quote]

Quote

4: Castro and Minh both won their revolutions and then their nations settled down and went about bettering the conditions of their people. The U.S. won its revolution and quickly monopolized power to rich white landowning males. It then went on to commit genocide against two racial minorities, and when it was done raping them it went after anyone else in the world who looked at it wrong. But I'm sorry, I'm just a dirty communist for thinking that.

If by bettering, you mean controlling the govt with a one party system with no freedom of speech/opposition then yes. In terms of what we did post revolution, ya we did lots of shitty things and I've never said otherwise, America is not perfect, but atleast in its short time as a nation it has improved into a great country. I think the problem you don't understand is, I've never claimed America is perfect, I've just never claimed everyone ELSE is better than us like you seem to think.

Quote

5: Vietnam invaded Cambodia? When was this? Also, do you think it's right that South Korea has to depend on the U.S. for its existence? Dosn't that make it more or less a territory? Imperialism dosn't always wear an ugly face.

Yes Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1979... it removed the Khmer Rouge (which was supported by the Chinese) and installed a pro Vietnamese govt. Between 1975-1979 though, Cambodia (pol pot) massacred 1.7 million of his own people and early on the Khmer Rouge was actually helping the Vietcong till they slowly grew apart because of Soviet Vs Chinese interest. Read up on it. In terms of Korea, no I don't. I don't think anyone should have to depend on us.. unfortunately, they do, and it hurts us because it means we spend more money on others who can't defend themselves. But for Koreans its great, even though they may complain here and there about our base, the bottom line is they have a free country because of us, and we don't sit there and control there govt like some imperialistic nation, they are perfectly independent. They have one of the strongest economies in the world, one of most developed countries especially in Asia and deserve it because they fought for it and got lucky that Truman was in office rather than a Republican.

Quote

6: The arms sale is only part of it. What about all the invasions and military interventions? We may be trying to do it for a good reason but it's still imperialism. The Nazis often claimed that they were liberating the countries they took over or that they'd been attacked and that justified it to the populace. Imperialists never come out and admit it and there'll always be people willing to believe their lies.

Well which invasions/military interventions oversees in the past 50 years have included us taking over a country literally and controlling its every detail? Korea/Vietnam/Gulf Wars were not that. The covert operations weren't imperialistic either in the sense that even though we interfered in things we never controlled those countries.

Quote

7: Yes, but Lebanon is a country that we can keep from falling to the domino effect of Islamic radicalism. Just like Vietnam was. And the constant assaults on communism were done because the capitalists knew that if the workers in the U.S. saw communism working they would revolt. Part of profiting is survival, and to maintain their survival the rich rulers of America had to destroy communism. This may not have always directly profited them, but it was necessary for them.

The flag I'm holding is the internationally recognized terrorist flag. Any time you see it it probably means the person waving it is a terrorist, which is why it dosnt appear often in the states.

So you finally admit that US interventions oversees aren't to gain some economic benefit or territorial benefit, but to combat an idealogy. Finally atleast we got that done. And your right it is to stop the domino effect but whats wrong with that? Syria was controlling Lebanon unjustly, Lebanon deserved its freedom from radical islamic fascism, and America got it done. I don't see a problem with that at all.. especially since it was through pressure rather than military intervention. Lebanon is FREE because of the United States pure and simple.

And i'm glad you hold a terrorist flag ... you know what my problem with your side is? You believe in exactly what you supposidly preach to hate. You hate it when America does things that "the ends justify the means" yet you have no problem when others do the same thing.. you justify the enemies means by the supposid opposition to American "imperialism".

This post has been edited by Renegade: 08 July 2005 - 05:00 AM

[civilian_number_two]

Folks keep saying how the American slaughter of Native Americans is colonial and ancient history. A lot of the American frontier was tamed in the period after the Civil War, which we all know ended in the age of photography. The "wild west" is a period of the high 19th century, and the slaughter of the "Indians" spilled into the 20th century. Jesus; Little Big Horn was as late as 1876, and that was essentially the START of the slaughter-fest. So I don't know how anyone can be trying to say this all happened in the 18th century, and frankly I am surprised JM hasn't called you on this by now.

Black emancipation did little to slow the abuse of a people segreagated, withour suffrage, and underrepresented in legal matters. Lynching, ignorance of casual violence, and the idea that raping a black woman was something no white man would ever do, all pretty much guaranteed that court cases only ever enacted the law in the favour of the white majority. In other places, natives did not invent the Reservation, either, although the white men who put them there would later use them as an example of the Natives' "freeloading."

Anyway, not getting in on any of the other nonsense, but the US was cruel to its captured and native peoples at the same time that the USSR was cruel to its own. So the comparison, while biased toward the USSR, is appropriate with respect to era.

Carry on.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 08 July 2005 - 03:00 PM

[Renegade]

Ya actually those are pretty valid points and if he had brought up segregation in comparison us to the USSR it be reasonable (since it was literally going on up to the 60s). Though I got to disagree with the lynching business and some of the other stuff, even though it was happening and it was dreadful, it wasn't govt sponsored mass murder like it was with the Gulags.

On the last token, if by era you mean the era in which each emerged and how they acted its sorta diff. America was a small country expanding west and committing those acts.. the USSR's emergence had nothing to do with even gaining land, it was simply mass slaughtering its own people. Now that doesn't condone one or the other, but I still think what we did was LESS atrocious as what they did, especially given their time periods. Though again i REPEAT i'm not saying America was justified, just not as bad but I guess I'm bias towards the US

[Ham Salad]

Jiminy crippers! Humans are cruel, people are cruel! The important thing is that humans make progress or at least atone for past misdeeds. No history is perfect. The Aztecs were an Empire civilization, in fact the Spanish exploited this by siding with a coastal people/tribe which resented Aztec rule. They also sacrificed their captives and so forth.
The Iroquois nation consisted of extremely aggressive and violent tribes in their own right. Point being that they being humans were killing each other long before whitey got tagged into the match.
If you study population movements, history and so forth the weak have always been driven off (the celts), subjugated (slavic peoples, africans) or slaughtered (too many to name)
This same holds true in the new world, Africa, Middle East, Indian subcontinent and anywhere else man can be found.
We are all human, and we are all to blame if one wants to be foolish and accept responsibility for their supposed ancestors.
History never ends, it only repeats. Get used to it, or drive yourselves crazy.

"Dear Neanderthal, So sorry about homo sapiens competing with you, killing you and stealing your women. I'll build a museum in your honor and fund a scholarship."