I'll assume you're using the first definition of Imperialism:
1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
Since the US is not aquiring territory, I'll assume you believe it's the second part.
Now, has the US established economic AND political hegemony over other nations?
Hegemony: The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.
Predominant, means before any other. Essentally a puppet state.
Economic? Well, I see see that. But then any nation that has the strongest economy can be labeled Imperialistic. Same thing with political power.
There we go, that was very easy. The US is Imperialistic.
And it would be a useful tool if the situation wasn't so simple. The criteria for being an Imperial nation are not mystical or vague. List them out; see if the US is doing it.
If it is, then the US is being Imperial. If it isn't, then the US isn't. If there's a grey area that's debatable, then bring up the point and debate it.
Re:What does your average user need with 3 gigs/da
on
Comcast Gets Tough on Spam
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Don't forget:
Gaming server IRC server multiple VNC server Internet radio PHPnuke boards Popular Blog Popular Webcomic comic Not so popular flavor of Linux you made yourself Internet phone Being a camgirl
Seriously, is your imagination so limited that you can't think of another way you use up a lot of uploading bandwidth legally?
"One of the most serious problems in our schools in this country today is gang violence and the increasing frequency with which children are bringing guns to school. But then again, why WOULDN'T kids bring guns to school when we've always got the National Rifle Association telling us that the only way to protect yourself against crime is to always carry a gun with you everywhere you go."
In the old days, kids brought their rifles to school without problems. I guess it's the guns fault that they're having problems today.
Most likely the guy will be using something to intimate you into turning over your stuff. All you have to do is fear for you life and you can take his.
There's nothing in that statement that says the US can't/doesn't have "executive power and the ability to act as its security council without oversight or resolution"
There's nothing in either of those resolutions that say that any country can't act in the name of the UN or to enforce UN laws.
You get your info from TV? I can't stand TV news. I can read my own news thankyouverymuch, no need to have a pretty face read it for me off a teleprompter.
So, besides insulting me and making things up about me, do you have anything of any substance to say?
"In replying to a previous post, I noted that Americans are increasingly demanding that we remove troops from Iraq, as the bodycount increases."
Correlation does not imply causation. Unless you've got a link somewhere?
And how was Vietnam a "wars of choice"? Being drafted doesn't sound like much of a choice to me. Or are you talking about another aspect?
"People are starting to get pissed. "Friendly" fire deaths like Tillman's in Afghanistan are undermining the warmongering that always appeals to the American public, until the bodies start coming home."
Correlation does not imply causation. And could you think any less of the American public? Remember, soldiers are part the American public too.
Do you really think they're over there and not realizing the long term effects of their actions?
The "surprise nuke" is really weird? How so?
People would be mad at the nukers! Geez! How can you not understand that? And you have so little respect for those in power that you imagine that the US would spasmodically annihilate the world if they got nuked?
I'm beginning to suspect that I'm being taken by a subtle troll.
Iraq is "not nearly disarmed," he wrote in a 1998 New Republic article, asserting that Saddam likely retained everything from nerve gas to anthrax, as well as his "entire nuclear weapons infrastructure." Iraq could completely resurrect its weapons of mass destruction programs "within a period of six months," he told a Senate committee that year.
You actually trust this guy?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Art ic les/000/000/001/249vnlte.asp
I'm sorry, I don't see any evidence of Americans not accepting large casualties in war.
And if you cite Vietnam, I'd say that was because that was an un-winable war (without confronting USSR/China) being fought by conscripts.
If the officers in the military started RECKLESSLY and THOUGHTLESSLY using up troops like toilet paper, then people would get pissed. If they were getting killed and there was no end goal for them to work towards, then people would get pissed.
But if a Battalion got wiped out by a surprise nuke, do you really believe people would be mad at war, Bush or the military?
Slashdot Mirror
Look, this is really simple.
I'll assume you're using the first definition of Imperialism:
1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
Since the US is not aquiring territory, I'll assume you believe it's the second part.
Now, has the US established economic AND political hegemony over other nations?
Hegemony: The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.
Predominant, means before any other. Essentally a puppet state.
Economic? Well, I see see that. But then any nation that has the strongest economy can be labeled Imperialistic. Same thing with political power.
There we go, that was very easy. The US is Imperialistic.
I understand "pattern of behavior".
And it would be a useful tool if the situation wasn't so simple. The criteria for being an Imperial nation are not mystical or vague. List them out; see if the US is doing it.
If it is, then the US is being Imperial. If it isn't, then the US isn't. If there's a grey area that's debatable, then bring up the point and debate it.
Don't forget:
Gaming server
IRC server
multiple VNC server
Internet radio
PHPnuke boards
Popular Blog
Popular Webcomic comic
Not so popular flavor of Linux you made yourself
Internet phone
Being a camgirl
Seriously, is your imagination so limited that you can't think of another way you use up a lot of uploading bandwidth legally?
So, the charge is that the US is not practicing imperialism in the occupation of Iraq.
And you say it has in the past.
So?
You don't look to the past to see if someone is doing something right now.
So, like, what? You built an android or something?
Were dangerous.
Your military is as small as you can make it, and between gun registration and the way you treat the members of your Armed Forces...
I can't imagine you guys in any war without the US to pave the way for you.
Gee, thanks for not mentioning the make/model of your car.
er, if the company isn't making money, how do you expect it to stay in business?
It's kind of like saying "We have the twisted notion that people have the god given right to eat."
I don't want subsidized phone deals.
Do you REALLY believe that phone is worth 150-600$?
They just pull these numbers out of the air to make you feel better about being locked into a a 1 to 2 year contract.
It would be better to see what she likes to do normally, and then see if you can use a computer to improve on that.
For the amount of time I spend on my computer, I've done very little programing. The little bit of scripting I do now is solely for my website.
heh. Sorry man, a group of people is a group of people. Not a living thing.
What are you? Some kind of poetry major?
How can the UN be pissed at us? It's just a meeting place for the reprsentitives of countries. It's not an actual country or living organism.
It is? Then why are there laws against impersonating a police officer?
That's ridiculous. The duck on the lawn didn't say you couldn't either.
But the laws that govern the UN should say what you can and cannot do. Including when you're allowed to do something in the UN's name.
Which was the original point! Someone asked to be shown where it says the US can act in the UNs name, and I said show me where it doesn't.
Both requests are equally ridiculous.
Actually, there are laws against impersonating a law enforcement officer without being one.
Try again?
"One of the most serious problems in our schools in this country today is gang violence and the increasing frequency with which children are bringing guns to school. But then again, why WOULDN'T kids bring guns to school when we've always got the National Rifle Association telling us that the only way to protect yourself against crime is to always carry a gun with you everywhere you go."
In the old days, kids brought their rifles to school without problems. I guess it's the guns fault that they're having problems today.
Most likely the guy will be using something to intimate you into turning over your stuff. All you have to do is fear for you life and you can take his.
There's nothing in that statement that says the US can't/doesn't have "executive power and the ability to act as its security council without oversight or resolution"
There's nothing in either of those resolutions that say that any country can't act in the name of the UN or to enforce UN laws.
You get your info from TV? I can't stand TV news. I can read my own news thankyouverymuch, no need to have a pretty face read it for me off a teleprompter.
So, besides insulting me and making things up about me, do you have anything of any substance to say?
"In replying to a previous post, I noted that Americans are increasingly demanding that we remove troops from Iraq, as the bodycount increases."
Correlation does not imply causation. Unless you've got a link somewhere?
And how was Vietnam a "wars of choice"? Being drafted doesn't sound like much of a choice to me. Or are you talking about another aspect?
"People are starting to get pissed. "Friendly" fire deaths like Tillman's in Afghanistan are undermining the warmongering that always appeals to the American public, until the bodies start coming home."
Correlation does not imply causation. And could you think any less of the American public? Remember, soldiers are part the American public too.
Do you really think they're over there and not realizing the long term effects of their actions?
The "surprise nuke" is really weird? How so?
People would be mad at the nukers! Geez! How can you not understand that? And you have so little respect for those in power that you imagine that the US would spasmodically annihilate the world if they got nuked?
I'm beginning to suspect that I'm being taken by a subtle troll.
There's quite a few articles on that page. Which one in particular are you pointing at?
Wow, if the war/rebuilding is going this well with incompetent warriors, I can't even imagine how well it would of gone with competent.
Seriously, I can't.
The same Scott Ritter who said:
t ic les/000/000/001/249vnlte.asp
Iraq is "not nearly disarmed," he wrote in a 1998 New Republic article, asserting that Saddam likely retained everything from nerve gas to anthrax, as well as his "entire nuclear weapons infrastructure." Iraq could completely resurrect its weapons of mass destruction programs "within a period of six months," he told a Senate committee that year.
You actually trust this guy?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Ar
I'm sorry, I don't see any evidence of Americans not accepting large casualties in war.
And if you cite Vietnam, I'd say that was because that was an un-winable war (without confronting USSR/China) being fought by conscripts.
If the officers in the military started RECKLESSLY and THOUGHTLESSLY using up troops like toilet paper, then people would get pissed. If they were getting killed and there was no end goal for them to work towards, then people would get pissed.
But if a Battalion got wiped out by a surprise nuke, do you really believe people would be mad at war, Bush or the military?
"Link me to the UN resolution that gives the US executive power and the ability to act as its security council without oversight or resolution."
Link me to the one UN resolution that doesn't.