US Imperialism

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Where's the tax revenues? We've got a deficit. If we've got colonies... they better start paying up. So why do some of you claim that the US has an empire?

[Hawker]

The U.S. has a shadow empire,instead of having colonies around the world,it has puppets,and instead of claiming land like empires do,it takes resources from 'liberated' countries.

[Louis Pio]

Capitalist Lawyer maybe your country is just bad at economics? Or maybe your country is just affected by the general crisis in capitalism?
What I do however know is that your question is not as intelligent as you seem to think.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 16 2004, 05:27 PM
Where's the tax revenues? We've got a deficit. If we've got colonies... they better start paying up. So why do some of you claim that the US has an empire?
Modern imperialism doesn't need "colonies"...even Lenin saw this in the early 1900's, and it's unfortunate that you still cling to the belief that imperialism requires colonies.

If you want an example of "modern imperialism," visit this thread:

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27847

[Morpheus]

Today's "tribute" is not paid to the government, but mainly to corporations from the imperialist nation in the form of cheap labor, favorable access to resources, and open markets. See http://question-everything.mahost.org/Soci...can_Empire.html (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/American_Empire.html)

[Ortega]

The United States is not imperialist. Overly interventionist, certainly, but "imperialist" is being thrown around here. Having puppet countries does not make a country imperialist. Were the United States to admit their complete ownership of these countries and directly and openly control their governments, then the United States would be imperialist.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Jacobo [email protected] 17 2004, 12:18 AM
The United States is not imperialist. Overly interventionist, certainly, but "imperialist" is being thrown around here. Having puppet countries does not make a country imperialist. Were the United States to admit their complete ownership of these countries and directly and openly control their governments, then the United States would be imperialist.
Wrong; you are confused as to the meaning of the word "imperialism".

Imperialism is defined in the modern era as the process of gaining control of another nation directly through aquisition of territory OR by asserting control of another nation indirectly through political or ecomomic means.

Perhaps you should have done your homework before you decided to join the sheep.

Baaaah.

[Ortega]

As far as I can tell, I was the only one to express that sentiment.

What about my comment makes me a "sheep"?

:huh:

[Capitalist Lawyer]

The U.S. has a shadow empire,instead of having colonies around the world,it has puppets,and instead of claiming land like empires do,it takes resources from 'liberated' countries.

In other words... the US is imperialistic because you say we are... not because we actually are.



Lenin saw this in the early 1900's, and it's unfortunate that you still cling to the belief that imperialism requires colonies.

You should try reading something besides stuff that was written by a certified nutcase.

[fernando]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 17 2004, 09:50 PM

In other words... the US is imperialistic because you say we are... not because we actually are.




You should try reading something besides stuff that was written by a certified nutcase.
nutcase huh? thank god your president didnt write a book ;)

On the US being imperialistic:

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27847

Brooklyn-Mecca posted the link, did you even bother to read it?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

thank god your president didnt write a book

GWB isn't perfect but he's a helluvuh lot better than that mass murderer Lenin.


On the US being imperialistic:

How exactly is that imperialism? We overthrew Saddam's Baathist regime and we are in the PROCESS of establishing a stable government, it can't happen overnight you know. Then you're going to say, "it's a puppet regime, blah blah blah." No we are just merely aiding them so that they can govern themselves.

Oh and btw, would you consider our "occupation" and rebuilding of West Germany and Japan after WW2 as imperialism? If so, look at how successful that turned out.

[fernando]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 17 2004, 10:10 PM

GWB isn't perfect but he's a helluvuh lot better than that mass murderer Lenin.



How exactly is that imperialism? We overthrew Saddam's Baathist regime and we are in the PROCESS of establishing a stable government, it can't happen overnight you know. Then you're going to say, "it's a puppet regime, blah blah blah." No we are just merely aiding them so that they can govern themselves.

Oh and btw, would you consider our "occupation" and rebuilding of West Germany and Japan after WW2 as imperialism? If so, look at how successful that turned out.
yah Im just gonna ignore US occupation of Puerto Rico and Haiti <_<

I&#39;ll ignore US support of terrorist organisations and military juntas against democratic leaders in various countries in Latin America, just so that the US could keep it&#39;s influence there.

So what if Lenin was a mass murderer, the US supported plenty of those in the past. Trujillo, Pinochet, Videla, to name a few...

[Capitalist Lawyer]

would you consider our "occupation" and rebuilding of West Germany and Japan after WW2 as imperialism? If so, look at how successful that turned out.

thanks for dodging the question.


So what if Lenin was a mass murderer, the US supported plenty of those in the past. Trujillo, Pinochet, Videla, to name a few...

Those guys are boyscouts compared to Lenin and Stalin&#33;

[fernando]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 17 2004, 10:30 PM

thanks for dodging the question.



Those guys are boyscouts compared to Lenin and Stalin&#33;
dodging what question? You ignored my comment on two other nations which were occupied by the US which are doing really shitty nowadays ;)

Boyscouts huh...how many did Lenin kill?

And so what if they are boyscouts...does it justify the crimes they have commited...

That thinking would make Hitler a pretty nice guy. I mean I Hitler wasnt that bad, I mean Mao and Stalin killed more, Hitler was a pretty nice guy <_<

[New Tolerance]

Those guys are boyscouts compared to Lenin and Stalin&#33;

Does that make what the United States did more justified?

[fernando]

of course...the US can kill as many people as they want, as long as they stay under the 60 million, because that was how many peole Mao had killed...I mean, you dont want people to think you&#39;re more intense than Mao huh :P

[Capitalist Lawyer]

You ignored my comment on two other nations which were occupied by the US which are doing really shitty nowadays

That&#39;s a poor analogy, we didn&#39;t occupy those territories in the same sense that we occupied Japan and Germany. So again, we occupied Japan and Germany (in fact we still have troops there) and look at how well that turned out?


Boyscouts huh...how many did Lenin kill?

About 300,000 but he did pave the way for Stalin&#39;s death machine.


And so what if they are boyscouts...does it justify the crimes they have commited...

If a pro-Soviet government were to take hold there, how many murders and crimes would have taken place?


That thinking would make Hitler a pretty nice guy. I mean I Hitler wasnt that bad, I mean Mao and Stalin killed more, Hitler was a pretty nice guy

I don&#39;t know the exact numbers of WW2 casualties on both sides but they might add up to more deaths than Stalin&#39;s or Mao&#39;s. Besides, what if Hitler was never stopped or perhaps WW2 went on a few more years? He would probably reign supreme as the greatest mass murderer of all time.

So I&#39;ll ask you another question, who&#39;s a bigger mass murderer? The US or the Stalinists? I won&#39;t call them commies because I know you delusionaries would have spastic attack.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Does that make what the United States did more justified?

How many more would have died if we never intervened to defeat the communists in those countries?

[fernando]

If a pro-Soviet government were to take hold there, how many murders and crimes would have taken place?
We wouldnt know, but not all the government the US sabotaged in that area were pro Soviet, that is what you yanks always use to justify your actions.

But Juan Bosch from the Dominican Republic and Salvador Allende were not pro Soviet leaders. Castro wasnt even a pro Soviet leader during the Cuban Revolution, the Cuba/USSR thing came later, after the US started the embargo.


That&#39;s a poor analogy, we didn&#39;t occupy those territories in the same sense that we occupied Japan and Germany.
and what is the difference between the occupation of Japan and Germany on one hand and Haiti and Puerto Rico on the other hand?


About 300,000 but he did pave the way for Stalin&#39;s death machine.
Oh ok...so if US supported dictators just stay below the 300,000 its all ok ;)


So I&#39;ll ask you another question, who&#39;s a bigger mass murderer? The US or the Stalinists? I won&#39;t call them commies because I know you delusionaries would have spastic attack.
And erm...I wouldnt get a spastic attack if you used the word "commies" Eventhough there hasnt been such a thing as a communist nation ever...

Stalin killed his opponents, which was a horrible thing, but he never gave the rest of the world a morality speech that massacres are wrong and that democracy should be protected and that we should fight terrorism, while at the same time train and deploy terrorists, have political opponents killed, sabotaged democracy many times.

The US has lost its credibility as a fair and democratic nation, you have no right of judging other nations on how they do their things, while supporting dictators when they are your lapdogs...

[fernando]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 17 2004, 11:08 PM

How many more would have died if we never intervened to defeat the communists in those countries?
Probably way less, since most people supported certain government who refused to be puppets of the US, they didnt have to be communists under control of the USSR, Allende and Bosch are two examples of this.

The region would have had a change to grow and become economically stronger, more stable, more democratic if the US didnt interfere with the democratic progress in some of these nations.

But ok...to you people like Pinochet, Videla, Trujillo and Batista are probably "guardians of freedom and free enterprise" and who cares if they killed a whole bunch of people and made a large part of the population starve on purpose...hey as long as they protect the US&#39; interests in the "yankee backyard" right? ;)

[Osman Ghazi]

Stalin killed his opponents, which was a horrible thing, but he never gave the rest of the world a morality speech that massacres are wrong and that democracy should be protected and that we should fight terrorism, while at the same time train and deploy terrorists, have political opponents killed, sabotaged democracy many times.


Actually, he did exactly that. You aren&#39;t really &#39;allowed&#39; to say that killing is okay, because people tend to look down on it.


How many more would have died if we never intervened to defeat the communists in those countries?

I don&#39;t know, it is a speculative and unknowable answer. Maybe less, maybe more. But as a rule, military juntas are just as capable of killing people as nominal marxists are.

CL, you need to understand. Colonialism changed during the 20th century. Particularly after Belgium&#39;s &#39;red rubber&#39; incident people realized, Why take total control of a country? I mean, that way, you can still extract huge profits from the low labour costs and people don&#39;t start asking questions about the people getting butchered, because it isn&#39;t a &#39;civilized&#39; country doing it.

That way, you can condemn the country doing it, even though you are reaping a huge profit off of it. The downside is that income is decreased because you have to give a little to the regional rulers and because you can&#39;t take as much. However, this is balanced out by the huge drop in expenditure, because it is no longer necessary to pay for expensive social services.

Ah, the changing face of imperialism. :ph34r:

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 17 2004, 11:08 PM

How many more would have died if we never intervened to defeat the communists in those countries?
How many more died as these countries were left to capitalists? It is historical revisionism where bourgeois historians claim that Lenin or Stalin was responsible for so many deaths. Socialist ideologies do not have the aim of mass murdering people and socialist ideology creates humans that are distinctly against the exploitation or killing of other humans beings for the benefit of one self.

These are some links on the subjects to which you were referring:


http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/cd4.html#RTFToC5

http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/index.html

http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/stalindeaths.html

[The Sloth]

How exactly is that imperialism? We overthrew Saddam&#39;s Baathist regime and we are in the PROCESS of establishing a stable government, it can&#39;t happen overnight you know. Then you&#39;re going to say, "it&#39;s a puppet regime, blah blah blah." No we are just merely aiding them so that they can govern themselves.

Fuck.

It&#39;s obvious you didn&#39;t even read the whole fucking thread; if you did, you would have been provided proof that states Britain knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. Why go off to war, then?

You would have also seen that almost all of Iraqi industries will now fall under the complete control of foreign nations, most likely the United States and parts of Europe. I don&#39;t call that "rebuilding."


Oh and btw, would you consider our "occupation" and rebuilding of West Germany and Japan after WW2 as imperialism? If so, look at how successful that turned out.

Rebuilding is rebuilding; occupying Iraq, however, and taking over most of the industries, securing 50% of banks and petroleum deposits for Western interests, etc. is certainly more than "rebuilding."

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Rebuilding is rebuilding; occupying Iraq, however, and taking over most of the industries, securing 50% of banks and petroleum deposits for Western interests, etc. is certainly more than "rebuilding."

Except that your example does NOTHING to show that Iraq is now a colony. We occupied Germany and Japan (in fact we are still there&#33;) and rebuilt them. Would you consider that imperialism? Just answer the question&#33; A simple yes or no will do.


Now, I don&#39;t make up definitions... I simply use them to communicate effectively. It&#39;s when people like you that try to apply words to situations they do not fit (ie "exploitation or imperialsim) that communication does NOT take place because you are using words in situations that they do not fit in.

If you want to make up your own language... be my guest. Here we use American English and the ACCEPTED definitions to words help us communicate effectively.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 18 2004, 03:53 AM
We occupied Germany and Japan (in fact we are still there&#33;) and rebuilt them. Would you consider that imperialism?
Yes. The Soviet takeover, and rebuilding, of Eastern Europe was also imperialism. World War Two was a war between rival imperialist powers. The victorious empires divided the defeated empires between them. Also, we didn&#39;t occupy Germany and Japan, the government did.

I am not making up definitions, this is how Merriam-Webster defines imperialism:


the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence (emphasis added) http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book...&va=imperialism (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=imperialism)

By this definition, taken from the dictionary, the US has been imperialist since at least the Mexican-American war. You can argue that imperialism is good, but that is different from arguing that the US is not imperialist. Your original post was an arguement against the theory that the US is imperialist, today this is standard propaganda from the US government, but this theory is clearly wrong. Even some of America&#39;s leaders don&#39;t believe this crap. Go find a copy of The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465027261/102-3003470-6120147?v=glance) by Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski isn&#39;t some kind of commie or leftist, he was Jimmy Carter&#39;s national security adviser. He was a significant player in initiating US support for anti-Communist rebels in Afghanistan. He likes to claim that his policies were responsible for the fall of the Soviet empire, which he sees as a great thing. He&#39;s a bigwig in the national secuirty establishment, part of the elite. In The Grand Chessboard Brzezinski admits that the US is imperialist and has no problem with this, he thinks it is a good thing. The first chapter of the book is a historical comparison of the American empire with previous empires, including the Soviet, British and Roman empires.

George Kenan was head of the State Department planning staff in the late &#39;40s. He was one of the main people shaping the post-Cold War world and the guy who came up with the &#39;containment&#39; doctrine towards the USSR. In Policy Planning Study 23 (PPS23), a top secret planning document written in 1948, Kenan said:


we have about 50% of the world&#39;s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity ... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction. ... We should cease to talk about vague and ... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better

Of course, in practice the government has to talk about those &#39;idealistic slogans&#39; in order to rationalize their actions and pacify the public. There is a spectrum of opinion among the elite on what the best way to achieve these goals are. On one extreme we have the "doves." George Kennan, who wrote the above quote, was on this end of the spectrum. He was quite pessimistic about the possibility of imperial over expansion (expanding the Empire to the point where it is too large to control) and sought to restrain US expansionism. Where others were more enthusiastic about invention in other countries he preferred a less interventionist course. In the section of PPS23 which the above quote is taken from he argued that in order to achieve this goal the US should limit its expansion into East Asia.

In the late 1990s US space command published a pamphlet titled "Vision for 2020" (available to the general public) which lays out US plans to use space to dominate the world. The beginning of the pamphlet, in Star Wars style slanted text, states, "US Space Command--dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment. Integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict." The pamphlet also says:


"Historically, military forces have evolved to protect national interests and investments -- both military and economic. During the rise of sea commerce, nations built navies to protect and enhance their commercial interests. During the westward expansion of the continental United States, military outposts and the cavalry emerged to protect our wagon trains, settlements, and railroads. ... space forces will emerge to protect military and commercial national interests and investment in the space medium due to their increasing importance. ... The emerging synergy of space superiority with land, sea, and air superiority, will lead to Full Spectrum Dominance. ... The globalization of the world economy will also continue, with a widening between "haves" and "have-nots." ... Space commerce is becoming increasingly important to the global economy. Likewise, the importance of space capabilities to military operations is being widely embraced ... there will be a critical need to control the space medium to ensure US dominance on future battlefields. ... The two principal themes of the USSSPACECOM Vision are dominating the space medium and integrating space power throughout military operations."

Don&#39;t take my word for it, read the pamphlet for yourself here (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Archive/vision_2020.pdf).

It has been proven by declassified documentst that oil was a major motivation for the US government in the Gulf War. Go read National Security Directive 45. You can find it at http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/nsd/N...D%2045/0001.pdf (http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/nsd/NSD/NSD%2045/0001.pdf) It was signed by the first president Bush shortly after Iraq&#39;s invasion of Kuwait and makes clear the oil factor.

The primary goal behind US foreign policy is not anything benevolent, it is to defend & expand the power of the American government abroad and to protect the investments of American corporations abroad, to make things more profitable for them. If something positive comes out of this it is a side-effect, not the main goal.

In the case of Germany and Japan, these were already industrial countries when the US took them over. In both cases, there were basically two choices: to rebuild each empire, this time under over-arching US domination, or to let the country and their former empire go off on their own. The later was unthinkable to any self-respecting imperialist, so the first was pursued. Germany & Japan served as manufacturing centers to supply goods to the empire. Japan rebuilt off profits from making weapons for the US in various wars, including Korea & Vietnam. Japan still isn&#39;t a democracy, BTW, it has been a one-party state for 50 years except for a brief period in the early &#39;90s. The Marshall plan in Europe served to give US manufactures a place to export their goods, in effect a veiled subsidy for American corporations with fringe benefits for Europeans. It was also necessary to prevent too many Europeans from being poor, because then they would start to think that their cousins across they way in Stalinist countries had it better off and there might be some kind of revolution or rebellion in the West. That&#39;s part of why the welfare state developed there. The US also recruited several former Nazi war criminals like Reinhard Gehlen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Gehlen) to help them control West Europe.

Conditions in Iraq today are very different from conditions in Japan & Germany after WW2.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 08:48 PM
Capitalist Lawyer maybe your country is just bad at economics? Or maybe your country is just affected by the general crisis in capitalism?
What I do however know is that your question is not as intelligent as you seem to think.
That was maningless rhetoric. You in no way addressed the question, really.

[The New Yorker]

these so called "puppet nations" under the USA’s control are laughable. Of course they listen to USA’s demands how this makes the USA evil is beyond me. Why they listen is beyond obvious, the United States is the most powerful country in the world so there for when they say jump you say "how high?". These nations aren’t "puppet nations" as they have shown they have the power to disagree with the USA. They run there own capitalist society’s and elect there own officials. Puppet that Mr. Commie-man.

math is even on my side to prove why they listen to the USA observe.

USA > (insert country here)

Bada Bing Bada Boom.

:Insert crack jawed commie theory here:
|
|
|
|
|
V

[Morpheus]

Why they listen is beyond obvious, the United States is the most powerful country in the world so there for when they say jump you say "how high?".

That is the very definition of a puppet government. A government that is dominated by another government.


These nations aren’t "puppet nations" as they have shown they have the power to disagree with the USA

Soviet satellite states would sometimes disagree with the USSR, too, does that mean they weren&#39;t satellite states? The same is true of American satellite states. The point is that some countries dominate others, even if that domination doesn&#39;t allow 100% complete micromanagement. Slaves that disagree with their masters are still slaves.


They run there own capitalist society’s and elect there own officials.

Unless the government deviates too far from what Washington wants, then the US will overthrow them and put in power people who will implement the policies Washington wants. If needed the US is more than willing to put in power brutal dictatorships to get its way. The US today supports dictatorships in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt and many other places.

[fernando]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 19 2004, 06:38 AM
these so called "puppet nations" under the USA’s control are laughable. Of course they listen to USA’s demands how this makes the USA evil is beyond me. Why they listen is beyond obvious, the United States is the most powerful country in the world so there for when they say jump you say "how high?". These nations aren’t "puppet nations" as they have shown they have the power to disagree with the USA. They run there own capitalist society’s and elect there own officials. Puppet that Mr. Commie-man.

math is even on my side to prove why they listen to the USA observe.

USA > (insert country here)

Bada Bing Bada Boom.

:Insert crack jawed commie theory here:
|
|
|
|
|
V
Puppet nations...oh lets not forget the massacres supported by the US in those nations, killing every civilian who had a different opinion of left wing ideas. Lets not forget the military juntas which the US supported against democratic governments.

Yes the US is allowed to do that because they are the most powerful nation...with that morality it was probably ok for Nazi Germany to kill all the Jews, because they were the most powerful nation in that area <_<

Elect their own officials...as long as they are US puppets, you see what happened to Allende, Bosch. Oh lets not forget the 2002 coup against Chavez, the US immediatly recognized the new undemocratic government, while it doesnt recognize Cuba&#39;s government because they are "not democratic and left wing"

[gaf]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 16 2004, 05:27 PM
Where&#39;s the tax revenues? We&#39;ve got a deficit. If we&#39;ve got colonies... they better start paying up. So why do some of you claim that the US has an empire?
if they have an empire it is the one call asseholes and/or stupidity and because the other one are agreeing.
it&#39;s all in your mind&#33;

[Capitalist Imperial]

orderlies to east wing&#33;

orderies to east wing

mental patient has escaped the infirmary, trepeat, mental patient has escaped the infirmary

[gaf]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2004, 05:38 PM
orderlies to east wing&#33;

orderlies to east wing&#33;

mental patient has escaped the infirmary, repeat, mental patient has escaped the infirmary
well i don&#39;t know if it came from east wing but i &#39;ll will bet from the nursery(west wing that is.lol.)

[socialistfuture]

yeah the yanks have done lots for japan *cough Ngasaki Hiroshima cough*

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 09:05 PM
yeah the yanks have done lots for japan *cough Ngasaki Hiroshima cough*
*cough* The Japaneze *cough* brought it on *cough* themselves*cough*.

The only ones ultimately responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the Japanezee brass that decidied to attack Pearl Harbor in the 1st place, as well as the ones that armed millions of their peasant citizens with sticks and stones to prepare to defend a mainland US invasion that would&#39;ve been more costly on both sides.

Ameriuca wasn&#39;t simply looking to bomb the Japaneze.

As crazy as it may sound, the US decision to drop the bombs saved lives.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2004, 09:22 PM
*cough* The Japaneze *cough* brought it on *cough* themselves*cough*.
Yes the entire population of innocent civillians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki brough it on them selves by...errrmm....coming from the same country as a dictator who attacked the USA.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 09:37 PM
Yes the entire population of innocent civillians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki brough it on them selves by...errrmm....coming from the same country as a dictator who attacked the USA.
I&#39;m not necessarily blaming the civilians as much as the Japaneze government. Not only that, but we advised them to surrender or face dire consequences.

They refused.

After the 1st bomb was dropped, the US again gave the Japanezae ample opportunity to capitulate.

They still didn&#39;t

Thus the second bomb was dropped.
What happenbed to the peasants was unfortunate, but, to be quite honest, better them than Americans

[Misodoctakleidist]

That&#39;s what Al Queda might say about 9/11.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 09:48 PM
That&#39;s what Al Queda might say about 9/11.
Of course they would. They want every single American dead, period, including all civilians, no argument there.

And if the japaneze had developed the atom bomb 1st, maybe San Francisco or Honolulu would&#39;ve been leveled, absolutely.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2004, 09:22 PM
The only ones ultimately responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the Japanezee brass that decidied to attack Pearl Harbor in the 1st place
FDR intentionally tricked them into attacking Pearl Harbor. This was proven by the McCollum memo. See http://www.rationalrevolution.net/fdr_prov...nese_attack.htm (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/fdr_provoked_the_japanese_attack.htm)


as well as the ones that armed millions of their peasant citizens with sticks and stones to prepare to defend a mainland US invasion that would&#39;ve been more costly on both sides.

An invasion was unnecessary. All that was necessary was to blockade the island and eventually Japan would be forced to surrender. Japan was actually willing to surrender prior to Hiroshima & Nagasaki, but with one condition: their emperor stay on the throne. FDR demanded unconditional surrender, which was a bonehead move that played into Axis propaganda about the Allies trying to conquer them.


Ameriuca wasn&#39;t simply looking to bomb the Japaneze

Yes it was, this was a natural outcome of the nationalist racist hysteria FDR unleashed against the Japanese. FDR put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, too. This was all part of the general anti-Japanese racism promoted at the time.


They want every single American dead, period, including all civilians, no argument there.

Please provide proof that Al-Qaeda advocates this.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 11:02 PM
FDR intentionally tricked them into attacking Pearl Harbor. This was proven by the McCollum memo. See http://www.rationalrevolution.net/fdr_prov...nese_attack.htm (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/fdr_provoked_the_japanese_attack.htm)



An invasion was unnecessary. All that was necessary was to blockade the island and eventually Japan would be forced to surrender. Japan was actually willing to surrender prior to Hiroshima & Nagasaki, but with one condition: their emperor stay on the throne. FDR demanded unconditional surrender, which was a bonehead move that played into Axis propaganda about the Allies trying to conquer them.



Yes it was, this was a natural outcome of the nationalist racist hysteria FDR unleashed against the Japanese. FDR put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, too. This was all part of the general anti-Japanese racism promoted at the time.



Please provide proof that Al-Qaeda advocates this.

FDR intentionally tricked them into attacking Pearl Harbor. This was proven by the McCollum memo. See http://www.rationalrevolution.net/fdr_prov...nese_attack.htm (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/fdr_provoked_the_japanese_attack.htm)


He "tricked" them into making a concience decision to carry out a full-scale air assault on a major US military base? Dude, get serious. Did we put a banana peel under Hirohito&#39;s red button? LOL, thats so inane.

That article is mostly conjuecture and poor deduction. Stop making apologies for Japan&#39;s choice. I can&#39;t believe that you are trying to absolve Japan of responsibility for their attack. That is reprehensible and obviously more purely anti-american than even reasonable or logical. The US "tricked" the japaneze into attacking Pearl. Dude, if you really subscribe to that then you&#39;re even dumber than I thought.


An invasion was unnecessary. All that was necessary was to blockade the island and eventually Japan would be forced to surrender. Japan was actually willing to surrender prior to Hiroshima & Nagasaki, but with one condition: their emperor stay on the throne. FDR demanded unconditional surrender, which was a bonehead move that played into Axis propaganda about the Allies trying to conquer them.

Bonehead? I don&#39;t think you can call it that being that the term was eventually met. Why would we let an emporer that attacked us stay in power in the 1st place? It sounds like a apt and legitimate condition to me. Axis propoganda is a non-factor considering they were defeated.


Yes it was, this was a natural outcome of the nationalist racist hysteria FDR unleashed against the Japanese. FDR put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, too. This was all part of the general anti-Japanese racism promoted at the time.

Which was a result of them attacking us. FDR didn&#39;t need to fan an already large fire. Anti-Japaneze sentiment was at a high fervor anyway.


Please provide proof that Al-Qaeda advocates this.

Do you want me to prove that water is wet too? Its common knowledge. OBL and his henchmen have stated words to this effect on a myriad of occasions. Your fellow leftists won&#39;t even argue with this.

[Osman Ghazi]

Why would we let an emporer that attacked us stay in power in the 1st place?

Stupid shit alert. You did let the emperor stay. So, after demanding their surrender, the Japanese give conditional acceptance on terms that, one month later were acceptable to the U.S. What changed in that one month to make that happen?


He "tricked" them into making a concience decision to carry out a full-scale air assault on a major US military base? Dude, get serious. Did we put a banana peel under Hirohito&#39;s red button? LOL, thats so inane.


He didn&#39;t &#39;trick&#39; them, he put an oil embargo on them. So, in retaliation, they attacked the U.S. It is completely justified by CI&#39;s view. I mean, Japan was just acting to secure their interests. I mean, they lost, but it was &#39;justified&#39;.


Which was a result of them attacking us.

Ha&#33; Anti-Japanese racism was prevalent long before and long after too. Even in Canada, a much more tolerant country, anti-Japanese racism was highly prevalent until the seventies.


Do you want me to prove that water is wet too? Its common knowledge. OBL and his henchmen have stated words to this effect on a myriad of occasions. Your fellow leftists won&#39;t even argue with this.

He doesn&#39;t want to kill them, he wants to convert them. Either that or he&#39;s insane.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2004, 11:29 PM
He "tricked" them into making a concience decision to carry out a full-scale air assault on a major US military base? Dude, get serious. Did we put a banana peel under Hirohito&#39;s red button? LOL, thats so inane.

That article is mostly conjuecture and poor deduction.
The American government intentionally provoked them into attacking the US. FDR probably didn&#39;t think it would be an attack on the scale of Pearl Harbor, but an attack was intentionally provoked. The US wanted to launch an attack on the Axis, but was unable to do so because of domestic opposition in the US. The only way to get the public to go along was to get the Axis to attack first. If that article is so weak, you should have no problem refuting it instead of calling it names. One of the strongest pieces of evidence that article uses is the McCollum memo. The later part reads:


It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the Japanese to modify their attitude. Therefore, the following course of action is suggested:

A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.

B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies.

C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek.

D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.

E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.

F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.

G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.

H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.

10. If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully prepared to accept the threat of war.

You should really read the whole thing for yourself here (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/mccollum.htm).

It is a matter of undisputed historical record that the United States implemented those 8 points. Those points, especially the oil embargo, led Japan to attack the United States. The McCollum memo shows this to be a deliberately designed strategy.


Bonehead? I don&#39;t think you can call it that being that the term was eventually met.

Unconditional surrender was bonehead because the Emperor is still on the throne in Japan today. If Japan&#39;s terms for surrender had been accepted with their terms the US could still have done exactly what it did do in Japan. The point of the atom bombs was to intimidate the USSR and build up nationalism, not win the war.

The demand for unconditional surrender served only to prolonge the war. Certain conditions, like not exterminating all Japanese or letting them have a figurhead emperor, should have been acceptable.


Why would we let an emporer that attacked us stay in power in the 1st place?

Why don&#39;t you ask your government, they left him on the throne.


Axis propoganda is a non-factor considering they were defeated.

That was not a forgone conclusion at the time. And it prolongued the war, causing more people to die.


Its common knowledge. OBL and his henchmen have stated words to this effect on a myriad of occasions.

If that&#39;s the case then you&#39;ll have no problem referring me to english translations of statements/speeches/etc. where he said that. I have read a fair number of statements, interviews & letters from Bin Laden but I have yet to find anything where he claims he wants to kill all Americans. That is something American war propagandists made up, Bin Laden never actually said it.


"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of &#39;face&#39;. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..." - Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

"the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn&#39;t necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Dwight Eisenhower, interview with Newsweek 11/11/63

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." - William Leahy (Chief of Staff under FDR & Harry Truman), I Was There, pg. 441

[Capitalist Imperial]

Look, you guys can offer what ever pathetic apologism you want for Japan&#39;s attack, and you can inundate this thread with analysis of how we didn&#39;t have to use the bomb, and you can submit all of your unproven theories of alternatives to using the bomb you want.

The fact remains that the Empire of Japan was a sovereign nation that made the concience decision to awaken a sleeping giant and fight a war with it, and it is ultimately responsible for the suffering of it&#39;s people, as any warring nation is.

Japan started WWII in the Pacific, and for that they will always be responsible. The US ended WWII in the Pacifc, a war that was brought to them , and for that I am forever grateful.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Posted on Aug 20 2004, 05:21 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial &#064; Posted on Aug 20 2004, 05:21 PM)The fact remains that the Empire of Japan was a sovereign nation that made the concience decision to awaken a sleeping giant and fight a war with it, and it is ultimately responsible for the suffering of it&#39;s people, as any warring nation is. [/b]

What? So that means the U.S. can do whatever it wants? If such absurd standars as these were to be ever applied fairly, you would be praising Osama bin Laden as a hero. That won&#39;t get in the way however, you&#39;re simply a religious supporter of U.S. Imperialism, with luny beliefs not so much unlike bin Laden&#39;s or that of some of the "Communists" here in fanaticism, who is quickly willing to make posts full of hypocrisy when they suit the appropriate religion.


Capitalist [email protected] on Aug 20 2004, 05:21 PM
Japan started WWII in the Pacific, and for that they will always be responsible. The US ended WWII in the Pacifc, a war that was brought to them , and for that I am forever grateful.

It&#39;s only a "war" when rich people are killed, when it&#39;s only Filipino peasents it&#39;s not a war. Are you really that clueless? The United States didn&#39;t end the war in the Pacific, they drove Japan out and then preceeded to fight the Huks, the same guerilla force who were battling the Japanese, while placing the Philippines under a series of dictatorships which do what the U.S. wants them to, who immediately pardoned all Japanese collaborators. Even worse, Hirohito remained as the head of state of Japan, and Japan was one of the key players in helping ensure the militarization of the Pacific, only this time it was serving U.S. interests so it was fine. Please don&#39;t trash this board with such nonsensical claims.

[Morpheus]

You didn&#39;t actually respond to any of the evidence & facts we put forth. Just a bunch of red herrings. Your&#39;e intellectually dishonest.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 10:09 PM
You didn&#39;t actually respond to any of the evidence & facts we put forth. Just a bunch of red herrings. Your&#39;e intellectually dishonest.
I responded to the extrtent that I needed to. All you are doing is finding ways to apologize for Japan starting the war, and you refuse to acknowledge the casation that led to the end. I don&#39;t need to respond toyour analysis, because it all has to do with what happened after the Japaneze started the war. issues of provocation have nothing to do with the fact that the Japaneze still chose to attack.


It&#39;s only a "war" when rich people are killed, when it&#39;s only Filipino peasents it&#39;s not a war.

Misdirection, off the issue


Are you really that clueless?

Ad Hominem personal attack


The United States didn&#39;t end the war in the Pacific

LOL, geez...

I&#39;m sorry, maybe I, along with the rest of the world, misinterpreted the US Navy sailing into Tokyo Bay and having Tojo board the USS Missouri to sign documents of unconditional surrender as an end to the war. My bad.

Talk about clueless.



they drove Japan out and then preceeded to fight the Huks, the same guerilla force who were battling the Japanese, while placing the Philippines under a series of dictatorships which do what the U.S. wants them to,

more off-topic rhetoric. what does this have to do with anything?


Please don&#39;t trash this board with such nonsensical claims.

first, you go look up "nonsensical" in the dictionary, post the definition, and then tell me exactly which of my claims fits this definition.

[LuZhiming]

It isn&#39;t off-topic rhetoric Capitalist Imperial, you simply aren&#39;t thinking at all outside of your little box. You claimed that the U.S. ended the War in the Pacific, a false claim, Japan was allowed to continue to exploit those countries after World War II, and as I said, U.S. forces were crushing the Huks, the same people who were resisting the Japanese invasion, in fact the U.S. began fighting the Huks even before World War II was over.

It&#39;s childish of you to purposely split up my posts as you did and respond to them with one-liners. By the way, I don&#39;t know of any dictionary that has the definition of the adjective &#39;nonsensical,&#39; they stick with nouns, so the definition of nonsense is:

1 a : words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas b (1) : language, conduct, or an idea that is absurd or contrary to good sense (2) : an instance of absurd action

Your claim that the U.S. ended the War in the Pacific is the one which is nonsensical.

[Capitalist Imperial]

OK, Einstein, let me do your homework for you:

non·sen·si·cal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nn-sns-kl)
adj.
Lacking intelligible meaning: a nonsensical jumble of words.
Foolish; absurd: nonsensical ideas.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
non·sensi·cali·ty (-kl-t) or non·sensi·cal·ness (-kl-ns) n.
non·sensi·cal·ly adv.

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


nonsensical

&#092;Non*sen"si*cal&#092;, a. Without sense; unmeaning; absurb; foolish; irrational; preposterous. -- Non*sen&#092;"si*cal*ly, adv. -- Non*sen&#092;"si*cal*ness, n.


[Free Trial - Merriam-Webster Unabridged.]
Source: Webster&#39;s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


nonsensical

adj 1: completely devoid of wisdom or good sense; "the absurd excuse that the dog ate his homework"; "that&#39;s a cockeyed idea"; "ask a nonsensical question and get a nonsensical answer"; "a contribution so small as to be laughable"; "it is ludicrous to call a cottage a mansion"; "a preposterous attempt to turn back the pages of history"; "her conceited assumption of universal interest in her rather dull children was ridiculous" [syn: absurd, cockeyed, derisory, idiotic, laughable, ludicrous, preposterous, ridiculous] 2: having no intelligible meaning; "nonsense syllables"; "a nonsensical jumble of words" [syn: nonsense(a)]


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


nonsensical

nonsensical: in CancerWEB&#39;s On-line Medical Dictionary


Source: On-line Medical Dictionary, © 1997-98 Academic Medical Publishing & CancerWEB



Now, generally accepted accounts of history dictate that Tojo&#39;s signing of unconditional surrender documents on the USS Missouri marked the end of the war in the Pacific.

Its that simple, ask most any historian.

Any territorial skirmishes in the Phillipenes are a seperate incident from what history accounts for as events within the period defined as World War II.

It is your pathetic attempt to lump the conflict with the Huks and skirmishes in the phillipenes in with WWII that fits the very definition of nonsensical, and to be quite honset, your claim is quite desperate.

[LuZhiming]

Actually, the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty is the event that is generally recognized to have ended all of Japan&#39;s wars in Asia. Also, you&#39;re purposely fabricating historical events by using phrases like "territorial disputes" and "conflict with the Huks." Those weren&#39;t simple "territorial disputes" and "conflicts" they were outright aggression by the U.S. in the Philippines just like that of Japans years earlier. If you still claim the U.S. ended the War in the Pacific, then you apparently you must believe the War in the Pacific was simply the conflict between Japan and the United States in the Pacific, and had nothing to do with the indigenous populations, and in that case Japan did not start the war there. Take your pick.

[Capitalist Imperial]

But, LuZhiming, the war between the US and Japan did have little to do with indigeonous populations. Any skirmishes that the Japaneze had with indigeounous tribes in the pacific was a seperate issue from why the US was at war with Japan. Any incidental conflicts that the US had with such tribes was, at best, a residual effect of the overal war, but not in any way intergal to the outcome of the war or the sovereignty of the US or the Japaneze empire. It simply was a non-factor

[socialistfuture]

Let the empire speak for itself:

Our overriding purpose from, the begginning through to the present day, has been world domination- that is to coerce everybody else on the planet, non-violently is possible and violently is necessary. But the purpose of US foreign policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump through hoops - the purpose is to facilitate our exploitation of resorces.

Rammsey Clark, former US Attorney General

[Morpheus]

I responded to the extrtent that I needed to. All you are doing is finding ways to apologize for Japan starting the war, and you refuse to acknowledge the casation that led to the end. I don&#39;t need to respond toyour analysis, because it all has to do with what happened after the Japaneze started the war. issues of provocation have nothing to do with the fact that the Japaneze still chose to attack.

Rubbish. You claimed that nuking Hiroshima & Nagasaki was justified because:


*cough* The Japaneze *cough* brought it on *cough* themselves*cough*.

The only ones ultimately responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the Japanezee brass that decidied to attack Pearl Harbor in the 1st place, as well as the ones that armed millions of their peasant citizens with sticks and stones to prepare to defend a mainland US invasion that would&#39;ve been more costly on both sides.

Ameriuca wasn&#39;t simply looking to bomb the Japaneze.

I, and others, pointed out that this is false for a number of reasons: the people who were killed had no say in the decision to attack Pearl Harbor, the Japanese were already willing to surrender when the bombs were dropped (so long as they could keep their emperor, which the US let them keep anyway), a blockade could have forced Japan to surrender even if it wasn&#39;t willing to do so, Pearl Harbor was not the unprovoked aggression you make it out to be, etc. Your responses to all of these have been completely refuted so you evade them and latch on to the last of these responses and try to change the subject to it. It is a fact that the US would have attacked Japanese first except for public opposition in the US, so actions were intentionally taken to get Japan to make the first move (oil embargo, etc.). The US government wanted Japan to make the first move and Japan obliged them. Your attempt to use this to demonize Japan and justify nuking two cities thus fails. One could just as easily say that the United States brought Pearl Harbor on itself. If they didn&#39;t want it to happen they shouldn&#39;t have imposed the oil embargo and other things that got the Japanese to hit Pearl Harbor - except the US did want that. That&#39;s at least as valid as your apologies for nuclear war & Liberal deceit. Furthermore, you never provided evidence to support your claim that Al-Qaeda wants to kill all Americans.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] on Aug 20 2004, 11:54 PM
But, LuZhiming, the war between the US and Japan did have little to do with indigeonous populations. Any skirmishes that the Japaneze had with indigeounous tribes in the pacific was a seperate issue from why the US was at war with Japan. Any incidental conflicts that the US had with such tribes was, at best, a residual effect of the overal war, but not in any way intergal to the outcome of the war or the sovereignty of the US or the Japaneze empire. It simply was a non-factor

First off, I never said anything of "tribes," you should try not to expose your own clueluessness so blatantly. The Huks, full name being the Hukbalahaps(Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa Haponm, meaning People’s Anti-Japanese Party) were a guerilla group that formed to oppose the Japanese occupation, they weren&#39;t a tribe. Moving on, you keep calling these "conflicts," and "skirmishes," as if the U.S. or the Japanese and the Huks had a minor disagreement and fought over it, and that is a blatant distortion of the events that happened. The Japanese, and then the Americans took colonial control over the Philippines, and the Huks fought back, the U.S. managed to basically exterminate them. Anyway, you have failed to choose, either the U.S. merely shifted the war in the Pacific that Japan started or Japan did not start the war in the Pacific. You can&#39;t have them both.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 16 2004, 06:27 PM
Where&#39;s the tax revenues? We&#39;ve got a deficit. If we&#39;ve got colonies... they better start paying up. So why do some of you claim that the US has an empire?
An empire doesnt have to have a colonies.

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 09:35 PM
An empire doesnt have to have a colonies.
no only slaves

[The New Yorker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 09:05 PM
yeah the yanks have done lots for japan *cough Ngasaki Hiroshima cough*
What a dumb ass

I guess we sure didn&#39;t help set up a powerful tiger nation. Or one of the worlds greatest examples of why capitalism kicks ass. A last no we didn&#39;t help set that up

[socialistfuture]

tell that to all those who still suffer from the effects of hiroshima and ngasaki. the US is so great - tell it to those who still suffer from agent orange in vietnam. tell it to all the maimed veterans. tell me why do so many people alround thew world hate america - or the american government and army?

because of its freedom? hmmm how bout the genocide campaign against native american indians, the invasion of vietnam, the pay of pigs - cia backed invasion of cuba, the occupation of afghanistan, iraq. the funding sent to israel to commit atrocities to the palestinian peoples, the funding and training of terror squads in latin america - the backing of pinochet, support of the apartheid regime in south africa. The list is endless.

The US spends more than anywhere else in the world on arms. Has a war against drugs, poverty, terrorism... lead by a war president.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 23 2004, 02:22 AM
What a dumb ass

I guess we sure didn&#39;t help set up a powerful tiger nation. Or one of the worlds greatest examples of why capitalism kicks ass. A last no we didn&#39;t help set that up
Hahaha, you have no clue what you&#39;re talking about. Japan, like South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, and Taiwan became rich by massive government intervention to ensure Capitalism doesn&#39;t choke the country. Also like those countries, the period of the most massive growth was in the 80s, the period when the liberalization programs were being implemented around the world with devastating results, all of the above countries rejected the liberalization plans incidentally. A few of these countries made a few Capitalist reforms in the 1990s, and that of course created the Asian Financial Crisis, and constant stagnation and decline. That&#39;s the great work of Capitalism. If you want to talk about the "greatness of Capitalism," you&#39;re examples would be places like Indonesia, which wouldn&#39;t make a very convincing arguement obviously. Modern day Vietnam is more Capitalist than any of these nations were in their time of growth..

[The New Yorker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 05:48 AM
tell that to all those who still suffer from the effects of hiroshima and ngasaki. the US is so great - tell it to those who still suffer from agent orange in vietnam. tell it to all the maimed veterans. tell me why do so many people alround thew world hate america - or the american government and army?

because of its freedom? hmmm how bout the genocide campaign against native american indians, the invasion of vietnam, the pay of pigs - cia backed invasion of cuba, the occupation of afghanistan, iraq. the funding sent to israel to commit atrocities to the palestinian peoples, the funding and training of terror squads in latin america - the backing of pinochet, support of the apartheid regime in south africa. The list is endless.

The US spends more than anywhere else in the world on arms. Has a war against drugs, poverty, terrorism... lead by a war president.
I could pull just as many examples from communist countries. However if i did dare to do that you&#39;d just deny it and say "thats not the type of communist countrie i support"

So why dont i pull a line from you&#39;re book and say "thats not the kind of......."

[RevolucioN NoW]

However if i did dare to do that you&#39;d just deny it and say "thats not the type of communist countrie i support"

You cappies never learn do ya?

there cannot be a communist country, it is a contradiction in terms.

its like talking to a bloody brick wall

[fernando]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 26 2004, 07:39 AM
I could pull just as many examples from communist countries. However if i did dare to do that you&#39;d just deny it and say "thats not the type of communist countrie i support"

So why dont i pull a line from you&#39;re book and say "thats not the kind of......."
Are there more kinds of capitalism and US Imperialism?

So there is like Clinton variant and the Bush variant or something? <_<

But oh wait..you believe Clinton was a communist...uhm...but...that would make him a paradox, this guy is a capitalist communist...hmm...there is a new one :lol:

Is that what you meant with: "thats not the kind of......"?

[The New Yorker]

Kerry is the of the most leftist politicians to run for president in years if not the most.

Clinton is also very left.

Don&#39;t worry ill think twice for attempting any humor on this forum again.

deathb4dishonor was right no joking or reasoning with commies on this forum. Just a bunch of rich suburb kids who feel strong in groups.

Wait till www.capitalist.com is up.

[ComradeRed]

What about eugene victor debs? Or is kerry more leftist than him?

[ComradeRed]

I could pull just as many examples from communist countries. However if i did dare to do that you&#39;d just deny it and say "thats not the type of communist countrie i support"

So why dont i pull a line from you&#39;re book and say "thats not the kind of......."
Communism
1. Any philosophy advocating a classless, stateless society without money or markets organized according to the principle “from each according to ability, to each according to need” 2. In Orthodox Marxist theory it is stage of history coming after socialism (dictatorship of the proletariat) when the state has “withered away” and society is run according to the principle “from each according to ability, to each according to need”

We use it properly, there appears to be a reading disability that goes hand in hand with capitalism. Oh dear :o

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 12:13 AM
Hahaha, you have no clue what you&#39;re talking about. Japan, like South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, and Taiwan became rich by massive government intervention to ensure Capitalism doesn&#39;t choke the country. Also like those countries, the period of the most massive growth was in the 80s, the period when the liberalization programs were being implemented around the world with devastating results, all of the above countries rejected the liberalization plans incidentally. A few of these countries made a few Capitalist reforms in the 1990s, and that of course created the Asian Financial Crisis, and constant stagnation and decline. That&#39;s the great work of Capitalism. If you want to talk about the "greatness of Capitalism," you&#39;re examples would be places like Indonesia, which wouldn&#39;t make a very convincing arguement obviously. Modern day Vietnam is more Capitalist than any of these nations were in their time of growth..
LOL, yeah, OK Luzhiming, Japan, South Korea, and the Pacific Rim&#39;s rise and economic success had nothing to do with the US economic model, Edward Demming, or US economic support .

And the Japaneze surrender to the USA on the deck of the USS Missouri is not historically considered the end of the war in the pacific.

I mean, do you actually read your own posts?

Let me guess, you don&#39;t actually believe that the US landed on the moon.

I&#39;l take the US educational system over yours any day.

[DaCuBaN]

I&#39;l take the US educational system over yours any day.

You mean you&#39;ll take the victor&#39;s version of events over that of the bystander? ;)


Let me guess, you don&#39;t actually believe that the US landed on the moon

I&#39;ve seen your &#39;moon rock&#39; - It&#39;s a phony, I tell ye&#33; :lol: :D


I mean, do you actually read your own posts?

I know little of this particular period in history, so I cannot comment. However, Lu is one of the most thoughtful and eloquent posters on this board: I&#39;m inclined to believe his version of events.

[Micah EL Layl]

peace....
god damn your cocky....oh well....
your time is up devil.....

[socialistfuture]

I would say the most leftist person running for president would be a leftist (suprise suprise) Róger Calero is one person running for president who is a socialist.
http://www.themilitant.com/

Clinton and Kerry are not overtly leftist. The notion that democrats are leftist is the same as saying that Blair is a leftist. They all support war, privatisation, and the police state.


&#39;we can bomb the world to pieces, we can&#39;t bomb it to peace&#39;

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 01:51 AM

You mean you&#39;ll take the victor&#39;s version of events over that of the bystander? ;)



I&#39;ve seen your &#39;moon rock&#39; - It&#39;s a phony, I tell ye&#33; :lol: :D



I know little of this particular period in history, so I cannot comment. However, Lu is one of the most thoughtful and eloquent posters on this board: I&#39;m inclined to believe his version of events.
I can agree that Lu is usually pretty thoughtful, but with respect to this thread, he is absolutely wrong.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Micah EL [email protected] 27 2004, 04:18 AM
peace....
god damn your cocky....oh well....
your time is up devil.....
I&#39;d appreciate not beng deified in by any mythological sense.

[gaf]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 26 2004, 10:00 PM
Kerry is the of the most leftist politicians to run for president in years if not the most.

Clinton is also very left.

then you&#39;ve got a problem. because it looks like dislexie.but may be you just don&#39;t want to look around.?

[gaf]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27 2004, 05:04 PM
I&#39;d appreciate not beng deified in by any mythological sense.
for god seek you will be :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[The New Yorker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 11:49 AM
I would say the most leftist person running for president would be a leftist (suprise suprise) Róger Calero is one person running for president who is a socialist.
http://www.themilitant.com/

Clinton and Kerry are not overtly leftist. The notion that democrats are leftist is the same as saying that Blair is a leftist. They all support war, privatisation, and the police state.


&#39;we can bomb the world to pieces, we can&#39;t bomb it to peace&#39;
LOL well lets just agree hes the most leftist guy running for president who stands a chance in fuck of winning.

That was an unnecessary thing to say. It sizes up to when you say "whats up?" to some one and they say "the sky".

[socialistfuture]

What about John Kerry is leftist? is he anti-war? no, is he pro worker as opposed to pro boss? no, is he campaigning to help the poor? for enviromental issues?

Maybe republicans consider him letist but a lot of leftists dont&#33; Ani Defranco in a song put the election as between tiddle dumb and tweddle dumber I agree. Kerry Served in Vietnam and supports the troops in Iraq.

No leftist stands a chance of winning an election in America because it is not a true democratic system. It is a contest between the republicrats and demotrons (wait humour.. cant allow that), a contest between millionaires with big buisness sponsorship. The last election was won a fraud - there is nothing to indicate this will be any different.

How many non white presidents have there been? How many females? How many recent ones have been working class? Mc Democracy - the best democracy money can buy...?

Prisons are an important part of the economy (slave labour), war is entertainment, the enviroment in the way, and peoples are there to cosume and obey... Well some of us say fuck that - fuck capitalism and its inhumanity, fuck your wars, fuck your greed, fuck your prison system, police states and all your lies and excuses - we will fight oppression and inequality -

Say what you want about socialism and anarchism - The people will always resist tyranny and exploitation, capitalism will have its blowback.

[socialistfuture]

any responce capitalist imperialist or other apologizers for US imperialism?

[New Tolerance]

Where&#39;s the tax revenues? We&#39;ve got a deficit

That&#39;s the Republican reelection strategy, they run a debt on purpose as an excuse to continue "cutting" social spendings (while more spending actually flows into the military). Empires do not necassarily dominate only for money.