Why the Left is so dangerous

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 14:10
VIEWED: 15600
PAGE 18 of 23

PREV PAGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NEXT PAGE

FLETCH2

Monday, July 16, 2007 4:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
You mean the guy's whose first foreign war was sending troops to fight Muslims and secure US commercial interests?
We fought a war after being repeatedly attacked on the open seas and having war declared on us. More importantly. we did not establish a military installation there nor did we run their government afterwards. That's the difference between and empire and a war.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

They attacked you and declared war only after you stopped paying tribute. Had you caved and paid up you could have avoided the war all together. Or you could have stayed at home and not gone near them. At the end of the day they threatened US commercial interests and you spanked them for it.

CHRISISALL

Monday, July 16, 2007 4:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Ah, the delusional fantasy of the evil American Empire.

Well, if you take it to it's extreme conclusion, kinda.
In reality, I suspect that the PNAC means well, much like the government in Judge Dredd; a secure world is desirable, and setting up as many friendly governments as possible would certainly help achieve that goal. It's a cold, calculated and worthy plan, in the eyes of patriotic moneyed-types that want a stable world economy and relative civil order.
And comparing Bush to Vader? More hogwash (garbage fed to hogs; I looked it up

). Vader was extremely smart.
No, what they want is real, and makes all kind of sense from a not-quite-fascist POV. Very Alliance-like, actually.

This is no fantasy Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Monday, July 16, 2007 4:27 PM

But we did not maintain a military installation there afterwards. The guy in charge beforehand was still in charge afterwards.

Quote:
Generally, they may define an empire as a state that extends dominion over and populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power. Other definitions may emphasize economic or political factors. The term generally implies military hegemonic power.

You can make a case that the FF defended our commercial interests. But you cannot make a case that they were intent on creating an "empire" - except for westward expansion which they not only took as granted, but anticipated it as the foundation for a rough form of economic equality which would save the new nation from the kind of rot that they perceived in Europe.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Monday, July 16, 2007 4:41 PM

Quote:
Not entirely sure that's an accurate assessment. The current Bagdad crackdown is actually against the Shite militias especially the Mehdi army. Ironically the US Military is the best defence the Sunni populous has right now, even though it's Sunni militants that are attacking the US.

Not sure that's entirely correct. Last I checked into the situation (which was about three months ago) the USA-led attacks were against the Sunnis in Baghdad. There was much talk about USA troops being able to go into Sadr City, but little action. That may have changed recently, but Shhites have already made considerable inroads displacing Sunnis from their homes and neighborhoods and the Iraq government is doing nothing to reverse that

Quote:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Teenage gunmen from the Mahdi Army militia patrol the streets. Shops abandoned by Sunni Muslims are reopening under Shiite Muslim operators. Slurs scrawled on Sunni homes are being scrubbed off, and Shiite families moving in.

Quote:
Shiites Remake Baghdad in Their Image By SABRINA TAVERNISE
BAGHDAD, Dec. 22 — As the United States debates what to do in Iraq, this country’s Shiite majority has been moving toward its own solution: making the capital its own. Large portions of Baghdad have become Shiite in recent months, as militias press their fight against Sunni militants deeper into the heart of the capital, displacing thousands of Sunni residents. At least 10 neighborhoods that a year ago were mixed Sunni and Shiite are now almost entirely Shiite, according to residents, American and Iraqi military commanders and local officials.

Quote:
Sectarian hatred in Sunni areas of Baghdad has shredded whatever remained of community life and created cycle of violence that pits Sunni against Sunni as well as Sunni against Shiite; Sunni areas are marked by ruined buildings, damaged mosques, streets pitted by mortar shells, uncollected trash and little electricity; Shiite neighborhoods present sharp contrast: markets are in full swing, community projects are under way, and civilian arms of Shiite militias step in to help when government cannot provide services

America has defanged the Sunnis to the point where they are no longer able to protect themselves. In the end I thin our government will opt for the easy solution of a Shiite tyranny.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Monday, July 16, 2007 4:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You can make a case that the FF defended our commercial interests. But you cannot make a case that they were intent on creating an "empire".

The Algerians proved untrustworthy, and broke the peace prompting a second war. After the second War was over the Royal Navy kept them suppressed until Napoleon instituted "regime change." It could be argued that the US never had a reason to have to maintain a permainent presence in the area because of that. You do have to wonder what would have happened if there had been a third or a fourth war. At what point would a permainent US presence (with a base to supply it) been nescessary?

You chose to look at text from the constitution period that stress isolationism and a minimalist defence and assign this as the Founders position. However if you look at what they did rather than what they wrote you will see that they were willing to use force to secure US commercial interests. That nescessity didn't extend that to a foreign presence could be more one of good fortune than ideology.

FLETCH2

Monday, July 16, 2007 5:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not sure that's entirely correct. Last I checked into the situation (which was about three months ago) the USA-led attacks were against the Sunnis in Baghdad. There was much talk about USA troops being able to go into Sadr City, but little action. That may have changed recently, but Shhites have already made considerable inroads displacing Sunnis from their homes and neighborhoods and the Iraq government is doing nothing to reverse that .

Wild idea here but you know, you could just check the news today rather than backing up your old news with old quotes. The "surge" is essentially about dealing with the Shites. I noticed this because I think it's a dumb move.

SIGNYM

Monday, July 16, 2007 5:28 PM

There is at times a discrepancy between what the FF said and what they did. Sometimes that's due to the varied backgrounds and interests of the many framers of the Constitution, which was a compromise cobbled together under the banner of getting rid of the British. One of the biggest compromises- over slavery- fell apart about a hundred years later.

Indeed the FF had commercial interests in the new nation as well as political ones. There is one story (never looked it up) that Washington, as surveyor, had huge potential ownership in the Ohio Valley that were held in check by the British not wanting to displace the natives. There is another story- which I have also not looked up that the phrase "pursuit of happiness" (which never made much sense to me) was a compromise between "ownership of property" and nothing. Jefferson supposedly fought tooth and nail against "ownership of property".

AFA the surge is concerned... I do not see 20,000 troops being able to bring the Iraqi Shiites to heel, nor do I see them reversing the long-term process of dispossessing the Sunnis. The articles are from May 2007, Dec 2006, and July 2007 in that order. They still hold true.

ETA: Here is "the pursuit of happiness" discussion http://wrenncom.com/CommentaryArchives/2001/20y01m07d04-01.asp

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Monday, July 16, 2007 5:32 PM

As an addendum. All empires are essentially economic in nature. You create one to gain resources for your people and in the case of the European nations, markets for their industrial goods. In the case of the European powers it was hard to expand territory within Europe because they faced powers as advanced as they were, in addition Europe was relatively poor in raw resources. It was the commercial need for resources that led to foreign conquests and the need for extra teritorial bases.

I would argue that America has always been an empire, just one that was able to expand freely in it's own continent. You could argue that every state capital outside of the 13 originals is in fact a military outpost of Washington used to secure territory annexed from the natives. Just because you didnt have many bases outside the continent didn't stop you from being an empire, you just had to work less hard than the Europeans.

Had the 13 colonies not been able to expand westward, had the natives been more advanced or had that territory already been claimed by another European power then chances are that places like Liberia would have been full fledged colonies once the 13 states started running short of resources.

SIGNYM

Monday, July 16, 2007 5:43 PM

Agreed. Unfortunately westward expansion and dispossession of the natives eventually led to such ugly concepts as "manifest destiny" and the view that all of the Spanish Americas and the Phillipines were "ours". But in the days of the FF that was a nascent concept which took over a century to develop. I wonder what they would have adopted if they could have seen the future?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CITIZEN

Monday, July 16, 2007 5:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
You mean the guy's whose first foreign war was sending troops to fight Muslims and secure US commercial interests?
We fought a war after being repeatedly attacked on the open seas and having war declared on us. More importantly. we did not establish a military installation there nor did we run their government afterwards. That's the difference between and empire and a war.

There's examples of wars of expansion in early US history. The war of 1812, for instance, if it had been won by America, Canada would have been subjegated into the US, just as California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming were captured from Mexico in the war of 1846 to 1848.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

PREV PAGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NEXT PAGE