What's wrong with Empire?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

You know...I often wonder...even if we ARE an empire, what's so bad about that? Far more people prospered under a millenia of Roman rule than suffered. I see no reason to apologize for our power today. It keeps us relatively safe and prosperous, which is the ultimate goal of all governments.

I like what Charles Krauthammer says about our 'empire' best though:


"Even Rome is no model for what America is today. First, because we do not have the imperial culture of Rome. We are an Athenian republic, even more republican and infinitely more democratic than Athens. And this American Republic has acquired the largest seeming empire in the history of the world--acquired it in a fit of absent-mindedness greater even than Britain’s. And it was not just absent-mindedness; it was sheer inadvertence. We got here because of Europe’s suicide in the world wars of the twentieth century, and then the death of its Eurasian successor, Soviet Russia, for having adopted a political and economic system so inhuman that, like a genetically defective organism, it simply expired in its sleep. Leaving us with global dominion.

Second, we are unlike Rome, unlike Britain and France and Spain and the other classical empires of modern times, in that we do not hunger for territory. The use of the word “empire” in the American context is ridiculous. It is absurd to apply the word to a people whose first instinct upon arriving on anyone’s soil is to demand an exit strategy. I can assure you that when the Romans went into Gaul and the British into India, they were not looking for exit strategies. They were looking for entry strategies.

[Comrade Phil]

I wouldn't call the United States an empire of the traditional sense. A traditional empire such as the Romans invaded a nation in order to replace the current government with their own and assimilate all of its citizens to their cause. They imposed direct control over the conquered nation (ie Romans formed the government), thereby expanding their borders and strengthening their economy.

The United States on the other hand invades nations to replace the current government with one which conforms to their system (global capitalism) and assimilates the citizenry to the cause of this system. The people of this conquered nation still form the new government and still maintain their geographical sovereignty (ie America does not expand its borders). However, their economy and their resources are now part of global capitalism and therefore the West (U.S. included) now controls and takes profit from it. It is a covert way of spreading the "Empire" (if you want to call it that) while deceiving the people into thinking they still control their nation.

If you look back through history the vast majority of nations which the U.S. has been hostile to have had nationalized economies to some degree, which meant that global capitalism couldn't take control over the resources which that nation possessed. So they either invade themselves or pay/train someone else to do it.

So is America an empire? Guess that depends on how you define it. It is certainly imperialistic.

[Whitten]

Far more people prospered under a millenia of Roman rule than suffered.

1/3 of all Gauls were slaughtered in their conquest by rome, and another 1/3 were taken as slaves. Romes means of production was based primarily on slave labour.

[Rawthentic]

I guess if you're a fucking capitalist you don't have to apologize, the only thing you people care about is money. But that prosperity that you so extol is the cause of intense exploitation of 3rd world nations and its people.

[Revolucion Compadre]

1/3 of all Gauls were slaughtered in their conquest by rome, and another 1/3 were taken as slaves. Romes means of production was based primarily on slave labour

Not saying your wrong, but do you have the evidence for this? Because that should be considered genocide then.


I guess if you're a fucking capitalist you don't have to apologize, the only thing you people care about is money. But that prosperity that you so extol is the cause of intense exploitation of 3rd world nations and its people.

Not all capitalists care about just money hastalavictoria, you seem very mad calm down, remember we are all people. Some people just want to set up a family business to prosper.

[Loknar]

1/6 of the Gaulic popoulation was killed, perhaps a similar ammount taken into slavery. its important to remember that there were Gaulic tribes loyal to Rome.

There were about 6 million people living in Gaul...

As to EMpire...historically speaking it is the best system to rule with because it provides stability and prosperity. Look at Africa...under Britain, it was developed. The tribes didnt go off and kill eachother because of the British Colonial regiment a few miles away. Now that the Europeans have left Africa what has happened?

Its also important to remember Romes contribution to history. They were the conduit that led to the expansion of Greek ideas. Also, a common religion (for peaceful purposes, a common religion in a region is preferable. That is mere logic), and similar languages. And frankly, at least Rome developed the land and educated the people they conquored. Before Rome, they were wearing animal skins and didnt take baths. When Rome came, they could read, take baths ect ect.

Empire is built because of Capitalistic greed (conquest was the way Rome supported it self financially). However, it still is the best system man has. Empire also has many good affects, such as the ones I mention above

[Rawthentic]

It might be the best system? But for who? Those who hold the economic power, that's who. The rest of the majority lose thier jobs to overseas nations and are doomed to unemployment, while the new workers overseas are super-exploited.

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:36 PM
As to EMpire...historically speaking it is the best system to rule with because it provides stability and prosperity. Look at Africa...under Britain, it was developed. The tribes didnt go off and kill eachother because of the British Colonial regiment a few miles away. Now that the Europeans have left Africa what has happened?
Europeans pretty much raped the land and the people and left... It wasn't everyone living together in peace. The Europeans treated the Africans like slaves, and exploited their labor, for low or no wages. They still left behind their companies and power structures when they left, as well. The African nations that were "nationalised", still actually weren't. Just traded one oppressor for another.


Its also important to remember Romes contribution to history. They were the conduit that led to the expansion of Greek ideas. Also, a common religion (for peaceful purposes, a common religion in a region is preferable. That is mere logic), and similar languages. And frankly, at least Rome developed the land and educated the people they conquored. Before Rome, they were wearing animal skins and didnt take baths. When Rome came, they could read, take baths ect ect.

Empire is built because of Capitalistic greed (conquest was the way Rome supported it self financially). However, it still is the best system man has. Empire also has many good affects, such as the ones I mention above

You seem to adhere to the myth that imperialism does well for all. It does not. The Gauls and Germanic people, among countless others, did not reap the benefits of the Roman Empire, it was the Romans. And not the working poor ones either. They heavily relied on the recruitment of poor Romans as foot soldiers, to do the dirty work of the Empire.

[Cryotank Screams]

What is not wrong with an Empire?

[theraven]

Europeans pretty much raped the land and the people and left... It wasn't everyone living together in peace. The Europeans treated the Africans like slaves, and exploited their labor, for low or no wages. They still left behind their companies and power structures when they left, as well. The African nations that were "nationalised", still actually weren't. Just traded one oppressor for another.

1) they left because they were tired of putting down the rebelions

2) yea yea capitlsim=oppression



You seem to adhere to the myth that imperialism does well for all. It does not. The Gauls and Germanic people, among countless others, did not reap the benefits of the Roman Empire,

actualy they did. while obviously while fighting room they lost a lot, they also gained a lot. it was for that reason that the gaul was a civilized province,and by the end of the empire many of its soliders were germanic or other forigen poeoples rome built roads the connectd everyone, brougth water to cities, introduced a sewer system and countless other health provisions. they were largely tolerant of other religoins (cept for chrsitaintiy obviusly) and so on. the roman empire did the world a lot of good.


it was the Romans. And not the working poor ones either. They heavily relied on the recruitment of poor Romans as foot soldiers, to do the dirty work of the Empire.

actually orgianly the army was something the wealthy did. the whole origain of the voting system was all men who served in the army ahd to provide thier own armor and weapons, so only the rich could do it. the origaon of the senate was each man who was ion the army got to vote for a senator and they ruled rome.

[adenoid hynkel]

BUSH THE SECOND-EMPEROR OF THE HOLY AMERICAN EMPIRE

[Loknar]

who was the first?

[red team]

I'm rather indifferent to empire, but like everybody else in Capitalist society, I'm a consumer mercenary. Can pay me enough to consume the fruits of empire or is it that most funds will be necessarily diverted to support the repression of the "foreign" lands conquered by the empire? If you want me to show you some patriotism then show me some money first, otherwise why should I bother?

In a language that you cappies can understand, what's the cost/benefit analysis for me? But, the thing is you can't. The system itself can't. Whoever is doing the fighting is paid a wage to fight for the interests of people who don't need to earn a wage. It's two sides of the same coin. The reason why you need massive violent force in the form of standing armies to enforce the acquiescence of foreign populations to your rule is the same reason you need a massive domestic security force in the form of the professional police to protect property relations and property rights on the behalf of owners to the disadvantage of workers.

[theraven]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 17 2006, 03:21 AM
I'm rather indifferent to empire, but like everybody else in Capitalist society, I'm a consumer mercenary. Can pay me enough to consume the fruits of empire or is it that most funds will be necessarily diverted to support the repression of the "foreign" lands conquered by the empire? If you want me to show you some patriotism then show me some money first, otherwise why should I bother?

In a language that you cappies can understand, what's the cost/benefit analysis for me? But, the thing is you can't. The system itself can't. Whoever is doing the fighting is paid a wage to fight for the interests of people who don't need to earn a wage. It's two sides of the same coin. The reason why you need massive violent force in the form of standing armies to enforce the acquiescence of foreign populations to your rule is the same reason you need a massive domestic security force in the form of the professional police to protect property relations and property rights on the behalf of owners to the disadvantage of workers.
1) the benifit to being a citizne of an empire like room is added rights lower taxes and so on. men served 20 year terms in the miltiary to obtain this.

2) humans are naturally greedy and selifh thus somtiesm physical foce is nessacry to ienurse property rights. and it snot only poor poeple who steal buddy.

[Orion999]

If America and the west is so imperialistic, and wages wars against other countries in order to force them into the Global capitalistic system, why have we invaded (I mean a real all out invasion) a grand total of three countries in the last 60 years?
Why has Western Europe invaded exactly zero countries during this time? Do you really think we care whether Iraq's economy enters the global market? How come some Capitalist countries support the war and others don't? Should'nt we be united in our evil imperialism to dominate the world.


Why does America show such restraint when dealing with it's enemies? We could reduce Iran's infrastructure to rubble tomorrow if we so desired. Why do we even bother with precision guided weapons and instead just blow our enemies away?
If we were so evil, believe me, the rest of the world would know it because allot of it would be a smoldering pile of rubble.

[The Rover]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 02:49 AM
If America and the west is so imperialistic, and wages wars against other countries in order to force them into the Global capitalistic system, why have we invaded (I mean a real all out invasion) a grand total of three countries in the last 60 years?
Why has Western Europe invaded exactly zero countries during this time? Do you really think we care whether Iraq's economy enters the global market? How come some Capitalist countries support the war and others don't? Should'nt we be united in our evil imperialism to dominate the world.


Why does America show such restraint when dealing with it's enemies? We could reduce Iran's infrastructure to rubble tomorrow if we so desired. Why do we even bother with precision guided weapons and instead just blow our enemies away?
If we were so evil, believe me, the rest of the world would know it because allot of it would be a smoldering pile of rubble.
The capitalists are not evil. No one is. They are just wrong. And although it is bad to be destroyed, losing a government your people have chosen and having it replaced with some bullshit republic is worse, in my opinion.

Also, the United States has not "invaded" mant countries because it has not had to. For example, all of the popular revolutions during the cold war in various countries. The United States never had to invade because they sent in the CIA, who then had other forces and/or counterinsurgencies replace those revolutionary governments with dictators.

And no, the capitalists are not united, because that is not what capitalism is about. Capitalism is making sure that you are better than everyone else. Of course Western Europe is going to follow it's own agenda and not that of the united states.

Oh, by the way, Hynkel, I love the magic 8-ball. :)

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 15 2006, 07:09 PM
"Even Rome is no model for what America is today. First, because we do not have the imperial culture of Rome. We are an Athenian republic, even more republican and infinitely more democratic than Athens. And this American Republic has acquired the largest seeming empire in the history of the world--acquired it in a fit of absent-mindedness greater even than Britain’s. And it was not just absent-mindedness; it was sheer inadvertence. We got here because of Europe’s suicide in the world wars of the twentieth century, and then the death of its Eurasian successor, Soviet Russia, for having adopted a political and economic system so inhuman that, like a genetically defective organism, it simply expired in its sleep. Leaving us with global dominion.

Second, we are unlike Rome, unlike Britain and France and Spain and the other classical empires of modern times, in that we do not hunger for territory. The use of the word “empire” in the American context is ridiculous. It is absurd to apply the word to a people whose first instinct upon arriving on anyone’s soil is to demand an exit strategy. I can assure you that when the Romans went into Gaul and the British into India, they were not looking for exit strategies. They were looking for entry strategies.
Given that "America" sits on on top of Mexican and indigenous land acquired through "manifest destiny," given that "America" is not a nation but a group of oppressed nations (Aztlàn, the various First Nations, the Black Nation, Puerto Rico, Hawai'i, etc., all of which were acquired through conquest) dominated by one oppressor nation (the "white" "American" nation), given that "America" has continually insisted on mainting regional hegemony in Latin America ever since at least the Monroe Doctrine, given that "America" still has old-fashioned overseas colonies in Puerto Rico, Guam, and other islands in the Pacific and Carribean, given that "America" currently occupy Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, and (by proxy) Palestine, given the entire bloody history of "America" from slavery and the genocide of natives to the invasion of Iraq, given whole bunch of other shit I haven't mentioned; yeah, I think its fair to call "America" an empire.

As for whats "wrong" with empire... I think you better ask the Native "Americans," Blacks, Native Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Iraqis, Afghanis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Haitians, Filipino/as, Cubans, Nicaraguans, Guatemalans, East Timorese, and all the other victims of "American" imperialism that question.

[Guerrilla22]

Charles Krauthammer never ceases to make me laugh, he's clearly detatched from reality. There's nothing wrong with empire... just so long as you happen to be one of those few who actually benefit from it, if you're not then its not so great is it. Asking what's wrong with empire is kinda like asking "what's wrong with rape?"

[theraven]

Charles Krauthammer never ceases to make me laugh, he's clearly detatched from reality. There's nothing wrong with empire... just so long as you happen to be one of those few who actually benefit from it, if you're not then its not so great is it. Asking what's wrong with empire is kinda like asking "what's wrong with rape?"

well obviusly it depend son the empire. msot americans look to the british empire not, say the belgian congo...


Given that "America" sits on on top of Mexican and indigenous land acquired through "manifest destiny," given that "America" is not a nation but a group of oppressed nations (Aztlàn, the various First Nations, the Black Nation, Puerto Rico, Hawai'i, etc., all of which were acquired through conquest) dominated by one oppressor nation (the "white" "American" nation), given that "America" has continually insisted on mainting regional hegemony in Latin America ever since at least the Monroe Doctrine, given that "America" still has old-fashioned overseas colonies in Puerto Rico, Guam, and other islands in the Pacific and Carribean, given that "America" currently occupy Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, and (by proxy) Palestine, given the entire bloody history of "America" from slavery and the genocide of natives to the invasion of Iraq, given whole bunch of other shit I haven't mentioned; yeah, I think its fair to call "America" an empire.


lets look at these

aztlan is a mythlical empire takled about by mexican neo-naitnatilists the aztec empire was destroye dby the spanish empire not america and it aquired the land in war between nations, land mostly inhabited by the way by amerians.

the various indain tribes were essitnatly neoltohic hunter/gatherer tribes that came into conflict with the agricultural based society of the settlers. they fought over land and had conflicting views of property rights. this resutled in wars and attrocites on both sides, which the settlers won

I have no idea what this "black nation" your talkign about is.

puerto rico was won in th spanish american war and because of this is one of the best run nations in the carriaben.

the monroe doctorine started out as an anti-imeprial docitrine intended to preserve the liberty of latin americna republics...

americas over seas colonies are a few islands whos natives are hardly in rebellion over it

america has peace keepers in hait becaus e it was in anarhcy and its in our sphere of influence...iraq/afghanastan are being occupied for a varity of reaosn though ti si only tmerpory...as for israel lets nto go there now as thats a subject itself..






As for whats "wrong" with empire... I think you better ask the Native "Americans," Blacks, Native Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Iraqis, Afghanis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Haitians, Filipino/as, Cubans, Nicaraguans, Guatemalans, East Timorese, and all the other victims of "American" imperialism that question.

well lets look

Natve indains-lost the conficlt, ovbiusly not a bgi fan

blacks-better off here then in africa..

native haiwaians and peurto ricans arent' doing badly

mexicans-seems to want to come here pretty badly

iraqis/afgahins-to soon to tell

palestianisn-if they stopped blwoing up sutff.

lebanese-well dpends hich you sk

haitains-not fraiomalir with the siuatiosn

the rest-victims of variosu wars/prozy wars

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:49 AM

Charles Krauthammer never ceases to make me laugh, he's clearly detatched from reality. There's nothing wrong with empire... just so long as you happen to be one of those few who actually benefit from it, if you're not then its not so great is it. Asking what's wrong with empire is kinda like asking "what's wrong with rape?"

well obviusly it depend son the empire. msot americans look to the british empire not, say the belgian congo...


Given that "America" sits on on top of Mexican and indigenous land acquired through "manifest destiny," given that "America" is not a nation but a group of oppressed nations (Aztlàn, the various First Nations, the Black Nation, Puerto Rico, Hawai'i, etc., all of which were acquired through conquest) dominated by one oppressor nation (the "white" "American" nation), given that "America" has continually insisted on mainting regional hegemony in Latin America ever since at least the Monroe Doctrine, given that "America" still has old-fashioned overseas colonies in Puerto Rico, Guam, and other islands in the Pacific and Carribean, given that "America" currently occupy Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, and (by proxy) Palestine, given the entire bloody history of "America" from slavery and the genocide of natives to the invasion of Iraq, given whole bunch of other shit I haven't mentioned; yeah, I think its fair to call "America" an empire.


lets look at these

aztlan is a mythlical empire takled about by mexican neo-naitnatilists the aztec empire was destroye dby the spanish empire not america and it aquired the land in war between nations, land mostly inhabited by the way by amerians.

the various indain tribes were essitnatly neoltohic hunter/gatherer tribes that came into conflict with the agricultural based society of the settlers. they fought over land and had conflicting views of property rights. this resutled in wars and attrocites on both sides, which the settlers won

I have no idea what this "black nation" your talkign about is.

puerto rico was won in th spanish american war and because of this is one of the best run nations in the carriaben.

the monroe doctorine started out as an anti-imeprial docitrine intended to preserve the liberty of latin americna republics...

americas over seas colonies are a few islands whos natives are hardly in rebellion over it

america has peace keepers in hait becaus e it was in anarhcy and its in our sphere of influence...iraq/afghanastan are being occupied for a varity of reaosn though ti si only tmerpory...as for israel lets nto go there now as thats a subject itself..






As for whats "wrong" with empire... I think you better ask the Native "Americans," Blacks, Native Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Iraqis, Afghanis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Haitians, Filipino/as, Cubans, Nicaraguans, Guatemalans, East Timorese, and all the other victims of "American" imperialism that question.

well lets look

Natve indains-lost the conficlt, ovbiusly not a bgi fan

blacks-better off here then in africa..

native haiwaians and peurto ricans arent' doing badly

mexicans-seems to want to come here pretty badly

iraqis/afgahins-to soon to tell

palestianisn-if they stopped blwoing up sutff.

lebanese-well dpends hich you sk

haitains-not fraiomalir with the siuatiosn

the rest-victims of variosu wars/prozy wars
And obviously Americans are nieve because they fail to see that the US itself is an empire, no different from the Roman, British, Ottoman or what have you. And like all the empires that came before it, the American Empire thrives at the expense of those in other countries.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

So, who would you rather have ruling the world at this present moment?

Sure, no specific empire is eternal but all throughout modern history, we have had some superpower/empire in the driver's seat.

If the USA falls, then someother superpower entity will simply replace it.

Power does occur in a vaccuum in regards to world politics.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 3 2006, 05:14 PM
So, who would you rather have ruling the world at this present moment?

Sure, no specific empire is eternal but all throughout modern history, we have had some superpower/empire in the driver's seat.

If the USA falls, then someother superpower entity will simply replace it.

Power does occur in a vaccuum in regards to world politics.
plus what happens when a superpower falls? 8 other powers battle for its place...

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 3 2006, 05:14 PM
So, who would you rather have ruling the world at this present moment?

Sure, no specific empire is eternal but all throughout modern history, we have had some superpower/empire in the driver's seat.

If the USA falls, then someother superpower entity will simply replace it.

Power does occur in a vaccuum in regards to world politics.
Empires also rise and fall. In 50 years the China will replace the US as the world's most powerful country.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+Sep 3 2006, 05:55 PM--> (Guerrilla22 @ Sep 3 2006, 05:55 PM)
Capitalist [email protected] 3 2006, 05:14 PM
So, who would you rather have ruling the world at this present moment?

Sure, no specific empire is eternal but all throughout modern history, we have had some superpower/empire in the driver's seat.

If the USA falls, then someother superpower entity will simply replace it.

Power does occur in a vaccuum in regards to world politics.
Empires also rise and fall. In 50 years the China will replace the US as the world's most powerful country. [/b]
perhaps, and based on chinas actions would you want that?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Empires also rise and fall. In 50 years the China will replace the US as the world's most powerful country.

Then so much for communist revolution in the world, eh?

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by theraven+Sep 3 2006, 06:03 PM--> (theraven @ Sep 3 2006, 06:03 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 05:55 PM

Capitalist [email protected] 3 2006, 05:14 PM
So, who would you rather have ruling the world at this present moment?

Sure, no specific empire is eternal but all throughout modern history, we have had some superpower/empire in the driver's seat.

If the USA falls, then someother superpower entity will simply replace it.

Power does occur in a vaccuum in regards to world politics.
Empires also rise and fall. In 50 years the China will replace the US as the world's most powerful country.
perhaps, and based on chinas actions would you want that? [/b]
No, it just goes to show you how inept the US government really is. While the US spends itself to death, China holds a 14 to 1 trade advantage over the US and is banking on loans the US is taking out to pay for its empirical misadventures.


Then so much for communist revolution in the world, eh?
Yeah, If China chooses to follow the path of the US and those before it, it to will rise and fall. The truth is a country doesn't need to be an empire to prosper. Take for example Scandanavia, those countries all enjoy a much higher living standard, overall than the US.

Also, the idea put forth by Krauthammer and other blowhards, that the US being an empire some how brings balance to the world and is helping other countries to prosper is ridiculous, at least concede that.

[theraven]

No, it just goes to show you how inept the US government really is. While the US spends itself to death, China holds a 14 to 1 trade advantage over the US and is banking on loans the US is taking out to pay for its empirical misadventures.


the US fiscal policy sucks i'll concede that




Also, the idea put forth by Krauthammer and other blowhards, that the US being an empire some how brings balance to the world and is helping other countries to prosper is ridiculous, at least concede that.

no actualy itst rue, empires which ensure stablity and free trade make the world a more prospeus place, see pax romana(25 bce-135 ce i ebelive) pax britnaicia (1815-914) pax americana (not psotive probably 1950-presnet or 1990 to presnet)

[Guerrilla22]

a more prosperous place for some, which has been my point all along.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:46 PM
a more prosperous place for some, which has been my point all along.
not for some, for all. some peopwl e will be worse off then others, but everyone gets a littl ebtter off.

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:49 AM
lets look at these

aztlan is a mythlical empire takled about by mexican neo-naitnatilists the aztec empire was destroye dby the spanish empire not america and it aquired the land in war between nations, land mostly inhabited by the way by amerians.

the various indain tribes were essitnatly neoltohic hunter/gatherer tribes that came into conflict with the agricultural based society of the settlers. they fought over land and had conflicting views of property rights. this resutled in wars and attrocites on both sides, which the settlers won

I have no idea what this "black nation" your talkign about is.

puerto rico was won in th spanish american war and because of this is one of the best run nations in the carriaben.

the monroe doctorine started out as an anti-imeprial docitrine intended to preserve the liberty of latin americna republics...

americas over seas colonies are a few islands whos natives are hardly in rebellion over it

america has peace keepers in hait becaus e it was in anarhcy and its in our sphere of influence...iraq/afghanastan are being occupied for a varity of reaosn though ti si only tmerpory...as for israel lets nto go there now as thats a subject itself..






As for whats "wrong" with empire... I think you better ask the Native "Americans," Blacks, Native Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Iraqis, Afghanis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Haitians, Filipino/as, Cubans, Nicaraguans, Guatemalans, East Timorese, and all the other victims of "American" imperialism that question.

well lets look

Natve indains-lost the conficlt, ovbiusly not a bgi fan

blacks-better off here then in africa..

native haiwaians and peurto ricans arent' doing badly

mexicans-seems to want to come here pretty badly

iraqis/afgahins-to soon to tell

palestianisn-if they stopped blwoing up sutff.

lebanese-well dpends hich you sk

haitains-not fraiomalir with the siuatiosn

the rest-victims of variosu wars/prozy wars
The "American Southwest" (Alta California, Nuevo Mexico, Arixona, Tejas, Utah, Nevada, and parts of Colorado) was part of Mexico dumb ass. It was stolen in the "Mexican-American War" of 1848. The various indigenous tribes you speak of were actually nations, which the U.S. government had treaties with, even though those treaties were routinely broken, and continue to be broken to this day. The Black Nation describes describes the situation of Blacks in the U.S., who have a distinct culture and economy, and who never asked to come to this country, and who, when they were "freed" from slavery, never asked to become citizens either. Puerto Rico, as you said, was "won" in the Spanish American War, which was an imperialist war fought to gain overseas colonies, because the U.S. was jealous of Europe's colonies. The Monroe "Doctorine" was never an "anti-imeprial docitrine," it was always intended to keep Europe out of Latin America so that the Yanquis could stay there. As you say, America has "peacekeepers" in Haiti because it is "in our sphere of influence." If "spheres of influence" isn't a euphemism for imperialism, then what is? I suppose Eastern Europe was just in the Soviet Union's "sphere of influence," right? Oh, wait, I forgot: that's different, because they were commies. :rolleyes:

I like your statement about how blacks are "better off here then in africa..." Do you realize that you're just echoing the nonsense spouted by 19th century apologists for slavery, or are you stupid?

"lebanese-well dpends hich you sk"

What if I asked the ones who got their houses blown up by Yankee planes? What do ya think they'd say?

[theraven]

The "American Southwest" (Alta California, Nuevo Mexico, Arixona, Tejas, Utah, Nevada, and parts of Colorado) was part of Mexico dumb ass. It was stolen in the "Mexican-American War" of 1848.

they were part of mexico till mexico lost them in a war. they weren't stolen they werewon.


The various indigenous tribes you speak of were actually nations, which the U.S. government had treaties with, even though those treaties were routinely broken, and continue to be broken to this day.

I admit we wernet always fair in terms of treaties...
but
there not nations in the modern sense of the word


The Black Nation describes describes the situation of Blacks in the U.S., who have a distinct culture and economy, and who never asked to come to this country, and who, when they were "freed" from slavery, never asked to become citizens either.

1) blacks previous to their entry to the US were from a wide vareity o tribes and cultures.

2) presdnet day black culture is dereived from the culutre of poor southern whites (who they had the msot contact with) as well as a smatteinrg of afrian traditsion from variu tribes

3) i am pretty sure blacks wanted ot be citizesn..


Puerto Rico, as you said, was "won" in the Spanish American War, which was an imperialist war fought to gain overseas colonies, because the U.S. was jealous of Europe's colonies.

and i am sure they are grateful


The Monroe "Doctorine" was never an "anti-imeprial docitrine," it was always intended to keep Europe out of Latin America so that the Yanquis could stay there.

actually it was because we wanted their repubcalin reovluts to succedd. they didnt so we meddled..someitesm out of good inetneionds someitmes out of profit

ps its spelled yankees...i know you can do it you do it later

pps southerners will get very pissed if you call thme yankees, a hint were americans not yankees.


As you say, America has "peacekeepers" in Haiti because it is "in our sphere of influence." If "spheres of influence" isn't a euphemism for imperialism, then what is? I suppose Eastern Europe was just in the Soviet Union's "sphere of influence," right? Oh, wait, I forgot: that's different, because they were commies. rolleyes.gif

the differnce being america sent peace keepers in to keep the peace because haiti desended into anarchy. ythe USSR ruled eastenr europe



I like your statement about how blacks are "better off here then in africa..." Do you realize that you're just echoing the nonsense spouted by 19th century apologists for slavery, or are you stupid?

well in slaverys days that would have bene incorrect. however comparing the living standards betwene blacks in america and africans the comparsion will show you which is better off..


"lebanese-well dpends hich you sk"

What if I asked the ones who got their houses blown up by Yankee planes? What do ya think they'd say?

see you can spell yankee!

[Loknar]

Regarding the American South West.

mexico and America both equally had no right over that land. It was native land. I suppose you could say it was more 'mexican' but I suppose then a Pueblo and a mexican are the same right?

[Guerrilla22]

they were part of mexico till mexico lost them in a war. they weren't stolen they werewon.

A war started by the US, so they could steal Mexican land. What about Hawaii?


I admit we wernet always fair in terms of treaties...
but
there not nations in the modern sense of the word

Not always fair? <_< hitler "wasn&#39;t alaways fair" with the Jews also, right? The word nation refers to a group of ethnically, or culturally similar people, it is you and other people who misuse the word. Countries are states not nations, unless you&#39;re talking about a nation state, which the US is not.


the differnce being america sent peace keepers in to keep the peace because haiti desended into anarchy. ythe USSR ruled eastenr europe

Just like they sent "peace keepers" into the Phillipines, Central America, and Iraq, right?

[theraven]

A war started by the US, so they could steal Mexican land. What about Hawaii?


it was a war both coutnires were itching for, it detmerinse who would dominate the north american contieniet




Not always fair? dry.gif hitler "wasn&#39;t alaways fair" with the Jews also, right? The word nation refers to a group of ethnically, or culturally similar people, it is you and other people who misuse the word. Countries are states not nations, unless you&#39;re talking about a nation state, which the US is not.

most americnas would consdier themselves a nation, they have culutrla simliarites....




Just like they sent "peace keepers" into the Phillipines, Central America, and Iraq, right?

no those were actual troops...

[mauvaise foi]

they were part of mexico till mexico lost them in a war. they weren&#39;t stolen they werewon.

And I suppose you think Hitler "won" Poland, right? Pick up a goddamn history book. James K. Polk, after annexing the Mexican state of Tejas (which had previously won its independence due to a "revolution" to protect slavery) deliberately provoked the Mexicans into attacking U.S. troops by sending them into disputed territory, just so he could have an excuse to grab Alta California and other Mexican states.


it was a war both coutnires were itching for, it detmerinse who would dominate the north american contieniet[/I]

Uh, I don&#39;t think Mexico was "itching" for control of the North American "contieniet." The ones who were itching for domination of the continent were the Manifest Destiny obsessed Yanquis.


3) i am pretty sure blacks wanted ot be citizesn.

How do you know? Did anyone ask them? They didn&#39;t get to vote on the 14th amendment did they?


ps its spelled yankees...i know you can do it you do it later
Oh, I see. You&#39;re telling me how to spell. :lol: Anyway, fyi, "yanqui" is the Spanish spelling. By the way, my favorite way to spell it is "yankkkee." :P


pps southerners will get very pissed if you call thme yankees, a hint were americans not yankees.

Oh no, the "southerners will get very pissed." I&#39;m really scared.

[theraven]

And I suppose you think Hitler "won" Poland, right? Pick up a goddamn history book. James K. Polk, after annexing the Mexican state of Tejas (which had previously won its independence due to a "revolution" to protect slavery) deliberately provoked the Mexicans into attacking U.S. troops by sending them into disputed territory, just so he could have an excuse to grab Alta California and other Mexican states.


we didn&#39;t take all of mexico...and the parts we did take were sparsely settled, and mostly settled by americans.

texas revoleted for reasons other thne slavery i believe



How do you know? Did anyone ask them? They didn&#39;t get to vote on the 14th amendment did they?

are you seriously compliaing that we gave blacks citizenship after the civil war? why on earth would that be bad?



Oh, I see. You&#39;re telling me how to spell. laugh.gif Anyway, fyi, "yanqui" is the Spanish spelling. By the way, my favorite way to spell it is "yankkkee." tongue.gif

how clever....