Pages: 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13

 

2008-08-04 03:40:16
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6663|UK

Turquoise wrote:

m3thod wrote:

jord wrote:

At a time when everyone was doing the same as us, and we managed to do it better, making Britain what it is to day then I'm proud of that. And you're talking to me as if I'm responsible or I'm some sort of General from 100 years ago.
With all due respect Jord i personally found your statement abhorrent. 

Sure imperialism was all the rage back then but that's not we are discussing and neither does it excuse its consequences.  Britain today lies on the foundation of hundreds of thousands of broken backs and corpses.  Imperialism does nothing for the host nation and the occupiers are parasites stripping resources so they could be returned to the 'glorious motherland'.
I agree... but you could say the same for the expansion of Islam.  You could also say the same for the expansion of the Chinese Empire many centuries ago.  You could say the same for the expansion of Spanish and Portuguese influence in South America.

The only thing that makes Britain and America stand out is that our empire building is more recent.

Most cultures that exist today are a result of some form of imperialism.  Very few indigenous cultures still exist or at least exist as a dominant force in their native country.
I would say comparing the rise of Islam (which tbh is organic growth i.e. they have a lot more children) to imperialism which is the forced conquest of a foreign nation......is pushing it somewhat.

edit

if you're referring to rise of Islam in the past yup, it was imperialism.

Last edited by m3thod (2008-08-04 04:07:15)

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2008-08-04 03:47:59
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6098|eXtreme to the maX
Well, good for them, they can have as much McDonald's and KFC as they want.

But this: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/map1-m06.jpg
B-b-b-b-b-but I thought the US didn't have any bases in Saudi?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2008-08-04 03:54:54
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6613|London, England
I'd say populating/converting a country and then carving your own Muslim country out of it (Kosovo, Pakistan, Bangladesh) sounds pretty imperialistic to me. Next up: Bradford and East London
2008-08-04 07:24:16
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6463

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

I'd say populating/converting a country and then carving your own Muslim country out of it (Kosovo, Pakistan, Bangladesh) sounds pretty imperialistic to me. Next up: Bradford and East London
What you mean next up? Those fortresses of English traditionalism fell many years ago
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2008-08-04 07:34:09
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6833|Cologne, Germany

as far as the OT is concerned ( strange, I keep saying that more and more often lately ), the only reason why US imperialism hasn't been on the front pages of history books more often is because the extent of those operations was much smaller than what most european imperialist nations have done. Also, it started later, and didn't last as long.

I am excluding cultural imperialism, of course. That has been going on for some time, with little signs of slowing down.

Now, do I think that the "war on terror" is really part of a bigger "new imperialism", trying to secure important ressources, and improving strategic security ? you bet.
But that's really nothing new. The big economies have been doing that for a while, through the usual "check book diplomacy".
Actually taking military action is something different though, and I think you'll find it difficult to find an administration official who'd admit that the military is really as much a part of today's foreign policy as it seems.

If the president had said after 9/11, "well, Saddam had really nothing to do with the attacks, and after years of sanctions, thousands of UN inspectors patrolling the area, and the no-fly zone, iraq is really a dumpster and not a threat to anyone; but for the sake of securing a strategic foothold in the area, I'd like to stage an invasion of iraq", do you think congress would have approved that ?

Ironically, if 9/11 hadn't happened, I don't think Iraq would have been invaded, regardless of the perceived WMD threat.
2008-08-04 13:24:22
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6754

B.Schuss wrote:

I don't think Iraq would have been invaded, regardless of the perceived WMD threat.
i disagree
2008-08-04 15:39:13
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6397|North Carolina

m3thod wrote:

if you're referring to rise of Islam in the past yup, it was imperialism.
Yep, that's what I meant...

I'd also have to agree with Schuss's comment about invading Iraq.  9/11 really did make invasion easier to sell to the public, despite the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
2008-08-04 16:01:50
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6593|132 and Bush

usmarine wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

I don't think Iraq would have been invaded, regardless of the perceived WMD threat.
i disagree
Why did we leave this first time?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-08-04 16:13:35
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6754

Kmarion wrote:

usmarine wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

I don't think Iraq would have been invaded, regardless of the perceived WMD threat.
i disagree
Why did we leave this first time?
what?
2008-08-04 16:16:26
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6397|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

usmarine wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

I don't think Iraq would have been invaded, regardless of the perceived WMD threat.
i disagree
Why did we leave this first time?
Because the first Bush was smart enough not to take out Saddam.
2008-08-04 16:35:46
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6593|132 and Bush

usmarine wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

usmarine wrote:

i disagree
Why did we leave this first time?
what?
If we were intent on an indefinite occupation we had a perfect opportunity.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-08-04 16:38:44
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6335|tropical regions of london
because we cared about the legitimizing factor of the United Nations in 1990
2008-08-04 17:40:02
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6593|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

usmarine wrote:

i disagree
Why did we leave this first time?
Because the first Bush was smart enough not to take out Saddam.
WWII Vet, Professor, Congressman, Ambassador (UN and Chinese), Vice President, CIA director.. he might have been the most qualified president ever. It's a shame that his own party went after him. Senior began the cold war draw down.. the gop didn't like that. Clinton is often associated with the cuts. He was just continuing what the previous administration started . GHB took it down (as a percentage of the GDP ) 1.4 percent. Clinton took it down an additional 1 percent. Junior reversed the trend.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-08-04 18:08:18
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6316|New Haven, CT

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


Why did we leave this first time?
Because the first Bush was smart enough not to take out Saddam.
WWII Vet, Professor, Congressman, Ambassador (UN and Chinese), Vice President, CIA director.. he might have been the most qualified president ever. It's a shame that his own party went after him. Senior began the cold war draw down.. the gop didn't like that. Clinton is often associated with the cuts. He was just continuing what the previous administration started . GHB took it down (as a percentage of the GDP ) 1.4 percent. Clinton took it down an additional 1 percent. Junior reversed the trend.
Its the T-word.
2008-08-05 00:28:39
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6833|Cologne, Germany

usmarine wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

I don't think Iraq would have been invaded, regardless of the perceived WMD threat.
i disagree
you do ? Care to elaborate ? At the time, Iraq was under heavy international sanctions, weapons inspectors were patroling the area, and the no-fly zones, together with satellite surveillance made sure that they couldn't even build a chopper without the US and others knowing about it.

The country was a dumpster, and a threat to no one.

Without 9/11, I think it would have been nearly impossible for the US administration to convince congress that Iraq was any sort of threat to US interests, or security. 9/11 was the catalysator, that made it all so much easier to justify.
2008-08-05 03:49:31
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6098|eXtreme to the maX
The neo-cons had a plan to invade Iraq, 9/11 was a handy - if completely unconnected - event.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2008-08-05 06:07:34
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6754

B.Schuss wrote:

usmarine wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

I don't think Iraq would have been invaded, regardless of the perceived WMD threat.
i disagree
you do ? Care to elaborate ? At the time, Iraq was under heavy international sanctions, weapons inspectors were patroling the area, and the no-fly zones, together with satellite surveillance made sure that they couldn't even build a chopper without the US and others knowing about it.

The country was a dumpster, and a threat to no one.

Without 9/11, I think it would have been nearly impossible for the US administration to convince congress that Iraq was any sort of threat to US interests, or security. 9/11 was the catalysator, that made it all so much easier to justify.
it was only a matter of time before saddam would kick the inspectors out.  he tested clinton and was bound to test bush imo.  except bush would call his bluff i would reckon.
2008-08-05 06:33:07
san4
The Mas
+311|6680|NYC, a place to live

usmarine wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

usmarine wrote:

i disagree
you do ? Care to elaborate ? At the time, Iraq was under heavy international sanctions, weapons inspectors were patroling the area, and the no-fly zones, together with satellite surveillance made sure that they couldn't even build a chopper without the US and others knowing about it.

The country was a dumpster, and a threat to no one.

Without 9/11, I think it would have been nearly impossible for the US administration to convince congress that Iraq was any sort of threat to US interests, or security. 9/11 was the catalysator, that made it all so much easier to justify.
it was only a matter of time before saddam would kick the inspectors out.  he tested clinton and was bound to test bush imo.  except bush would call his bluff i would reckon.
Saddam's greatest fear was probably an Iranian invasion. A serious US administration could have kept him quiet by promising him we would step in if that happened. We wouldn't have let Iran take his oil.
2008-08-05 06:47:40
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6833|Cologne, Germany

usmarine wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

usmarine wrote:


i disagree
you do ? Care to elaborate ? At the time, Iraq was under heavy international sanctions, weapons inspectors were patroling the area, and the no-fly zones, together with satellite surveillance made sure that they couldn't even build a chopper without the US and others knowing about it.

The country was a dumpster, and a threat to no one.

Without 9/11, I think it would have been nearly impossible for the US administration to convince congress that Iraq was any sort of threat to US interests, or security. 9/11 was the catalysator, that made it all so much easier to justify.
it was only a matter of time before saddam would kick the inspectors out.  he tested clinton and was bound to test bush imo.  except bush would call his bluff i would reckon.
Those weapons inspectors were in and out of iraq for mothns, if not years. Interestingly enough, one US team was kicked out in '97 when it became obvious that they were using the inspections as a disguise for espionage...

My point is, those weapons inspectors were doing a good job, and there was no indication that Iraq was going to be a threat for anyone, let alone a country outside of the ME, with the sanctions in place, and the country basically in ruins after two military conflicts within 10 years.

You're arguing something that you don't know would ever have happened.
2008-08-05 09:32:36
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6593|132 and Bush

B.Schuss wrote:

usmarine wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:


you do ? Care to elaborate ? At the time, Iraq was under heavy international sanctions, weapons inspectors were patroling the area, and the no-fly zones, together with satellite surveillance made sure that they couldn't even build a chopper without the US and others knowing about it.

The country was a dumpster, and a threat to no one.

Without 9/11, I think it would have been nearly impossible for the US administration to convince congress that Iraq was any sort of threat to US interests, or security. 9/11 was the catalysator, that made it all so much easier to justify.
it was only a matter of time before saddam would kick the inspectors out.  he tested clinton and was bound to test bush imo.  except bush would call his bluff i would reckon.
Those weapons inspectors were in and out of iraq for mothns, if not years. Interestingly enough, one US team was kicked out in '97 when it became obvious that they were using the inspections as a disguise for espionage...

My point is, those weapons inspectors were doing a good job, and there was no indication that Iraq was going to be a threat for anyone, let alone a country outside of the ME, with the sanctions in place, and the country basically in ruins after two military conflicts within 10 years.

You're arguing something that you don't know would ever have happened.
You're arguing five years of hindsight.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-08-05 09:41:28
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6547

Kmarion wrote:

You're arguing five years of hindsight.
No hindsight needed Kmar. I think a majority of world opinion was against taking any action beforehand because one could quite simply look at a map of the globe and clearly see the total absence of threat posed to the US by Iraq, with or without the rather unlikely WMD. Pre-emptive war to protect oneself can never be deemed entirely necessary in a nuclear superpower context anyway: unless the enemy is a comparable nuclear superpower with suicidal tendencies.
2008-08-05 09:49:08
imortal
Member
+240|6657|Austin, TX

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You're arguing five years of hindsight.
No hindsight needed Kmar. I think a majority of world opinion was against taking any action beforehand because one could quite simply look at a map of the globe and clearly see the total absence of threat posed to the US by Iraq, with or without the rather unlikely WMD. Pre-emptive war to protect oneself can never be deemed entirely necessary in a nuclear superpower context anyway: unless the enemy is a comparable nuclear superpower with suicidal tendencies.
The problem with the nuclear hammer is that, while the job of warfare will get done, and quickly, other things tend to get crushed along with your target.  It is possible to be a threat while remaining confident that that nuclear superpower will not be able to resond with full force, precisely because of the other nations involved and nearby. 

With the nuclear threat thereby neutralized, does being a "nuclear superpower" even then enter in to it?
2008-08-05 10:00:27
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6593|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You're arguing five years of hindsight.
No hindsight needed Kmar. I think a majority of world opinion was against taking any action beforehand because one could quite simply look at a map of the globe and clearly see the total absence of threat posed to the US by Iraq, with or without the rather unlikely WMD. Pre-emptive war to protect oneself can never be deemed entirely necessary in a nuclear superpower context anyway: unless the enemy is a comparable nuclear superpower with suicidal tendencies.
Looking at a globe I can see that Afghanistan is pretty far away also. We don't need to dumb the discuscion down to basic geography. The threat sold wasn't striking distance but rather a terrorism proxy.

Don't confuse my explanation as a means of justification neither. I'm just trying to elaborate on the circumstances at the time.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-08-05 10:50:43
Vax
Member
+42|5844|Flyover country

Kmarion wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You're arguing five years of hindsight.
No hindsight needed Kmar. I think a majority of world opinion was against taking any action beforehand because one could quite simply look at a map of the globe and clearly see the total absence of threat posed to the US by Iraq, with or without the rather unlikely WMD. Pre-emptive war to protect oneself can never be deemed entirely necessary in a nuclear superpower context anyway: unless the enemy is a comparable nuclear superpower with suicidal tendencies.
Looking at a globe I can see that Afghanistan is pretty far away also. We don't need to dumb the discuscion down to basic geography. The threat sold wasn't striking distance but rather a terrorism proxy.

Don't confuse my explanation as a means of justification neither. I'm just trying to elaborate on the circumstances at the time.
Exactly. 
I wish people could get this clear; though it didn't help that the administration wasn't clear enough.
There was an atmosphere of fear post 9/11, but Iraq was not "sold" as the threat...americans were not propagandised into quaking in our shoes over fear of Saddam's capabilities...the threat was that his (possible) weapons supplies get into the hands of some of these more spirited types that showed us what they could do with box cutter knives and some ingenuity..."imagine what they could do if they had some biological or chemical weapons"
2008-08-05 11:58:18
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6547

Kmarion wrote:

Looking at a globe I can see that Afghanistan is pretty far away also. We don't need to dumb the discuscion down to basic geography. The threat sold wasn't striking distance but rather a terrorism proxy.

Don't confuse my explanation as a means of justification neither. I'm just trying to elaborate on the circumstances at the time.
Yes and as Rumsfeld put it "There are no good targets in Afghanistan". Basic history 101 would have indicated to the most simple-minded of folk that conventional warfare in an alien land will do little or nothing to combat terrorism - because terrorism is open source and perpetratable from anywhere with the most rudimentary of tools. The fact that the majority of the bombers came from Saudi Arabia hints at this fact. What did Atta et al learn in Afghanistan? How to board a plane with a pair of box-cutters? Let's face it: both the Afghanistan and Iraq missions are farcical in terms of combatting terror. The west cannot financially sustain their involvement in these countries forever - not to mention the human cost. It's a great shame so many people in the west were so gullible. Unfortunately it wouldn't have made a difference if the public hadn't bought it - the hawks had made their decision and were always going in irrespective.

Small point - not being a dick here - but Blair sold it to the Brits as a 45 minute threat to the UK itself.

 

Pages: 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard