There are people who cannot walk and talk at the same time. These same people cannot drive and talk either. There are other people who can talk and drive, and completely shut out the conversation if the driving situation calls for it (that would mean the conversation suffers) Unfortunately, trends indicate the first set seems to dominate.
This might not be generally known within the US, but what we refer to as the Vietnam War is known in Vietnam as the "American War". It's just too convenient to forget who was the aggressor.
Wouldn't that be "France" as the war started with them? But wait, France was supporting the Vietnamese emperor, so that would mean... the North were the aggressors. A little history goes a long way. FYI - the US was a late late late comer to this particular war, and was not an aggressor.
And yet, somehow, the US still outspends the next biggest spender almost 3 fold, and more than the next 10 biggest spenders. It also is the only country with a missile shield technology that has been deployed and used, several iterations in fact. So where did you get your data from?
The US did some of those things, yes. It was not unique, nor even exceptional in this. It did not prevent the nations of Haiti, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Cuba, etc from running themselves, rather it either allied with the rulers or took colonies from others after being attacked in war. Some of the countries we had treaties with had suffered waves of governmental changes prior to the alliances, and if we'd left some of those earlier than we did that were colonies of defeated enemies, well, you'd have had lots more strige. The Philippines are a specific case in point there, as the Moro Rebellion, to name just one, wasn't against the US specifically, but against the rest of the people of the Philippines.
Read the history for the facts - you seem to want to bend it to your own warped moral sense of outrage. I make no excuses. Life was rough, and still is, in many of those countries and others. Native Americans are a special case, much like the Australian aborigines or native peoples of any land before the second plus wave came along. There are very very few original peoples on any land. In fact, even the Native Americans aren't the original people in the Americas, their DNA does not match those of the Clovis people, for instance, nor several of the ancient remains of Pacific Islander civilizations found in central and South America. Perhaps the cycle didn't start with these "natives" but far far earlier, and they were but one wave of many. The only strongly suspected original peoples in the world that I'm aware of are in Australia and the Pacific Islands.
And you're pretty funny - the only reason I continue to post - you keep straying from the original topic - Imperialistic expansion of the US pre 1941. You don't answer a single point. I give you the examples you asked for, and then you choose to make a commentary about America like it's a big evil, which I suspect is your actual goal. Hopefully you live somewhere else, otherwise your self-loathing would be clinical in scope. Yet you fail to argue the actual point in every post, drawing up new emotional ties to attempt to hammer home your illogical argument. Take the statement about invading a land and killing, displacing, enslaving or keeping the inhabitants as second class citizens. The only argument you could have made that was remotely close was the treatment of the Native Americans, which is and was reprehensible, much like Japan's treatment of Koreans and Chinese, or the treatment of Australian aborigines or the Bushmen of southern Africa, to name just a few. Unfortunately for you, the colonization period was done more than a hundred years prior to the US existing, and in fact, the US owes its existence precisely due to the Imperialism central to this discussion. From the US inception onward, what I stated is true. The statement about black slaves is a red herring in this case, because every one of the named Imperialists mentioned above engaged and profited from slavery in some form or fashion, with the difference being that the US didn't go out and enslave people, but purchased already enslaved people. There might not be much of a difference, but there is a difference, especially in the context of Imperialism.
Spain - 1493-1900, England 1580-1997, France 1600s - 1960, Netherlands 1600s - 1950s, Japan - ~1900-1945 are all classical examples. You can start there - essentially the claiming of land and resources while killing, displacing, enslaving or keeping the inhabitants as second class citizens. The US's claiming of contiguous land was the result of purchases, petitions, or wars inflicted upon it with few exceptions.
No, no it won't. Cognitive dissonance will prevent it. They have convinced themselves that they are good people on no basis whatsoever, and in order to protect that belief they will convince themselves that there is no way to achieve their goal but to ride roughshod over the constitution. Then they'll tell themselves that it's OK to violate the constitution as long as you're doing it to protect the constitution. Unfortunately, holding such a clearly contradictory belief is a kind of insanity.
Much like the belief that one's invisible friend will reward their non-existent soul upon death? There's apparently 80% insane people in the world. or at least the US, per your definition above.
Different times, different standards. Or are you going to rail against a whole host of other sick crap too? There's no shortage, like those 10 year old Philippine boys? (Note the date) You really shouldn't open such a shoddy line of attack, only unschooled, dim witted people try that, or those without a leg to stand on. And you still haven't actually gotten back to the main point of proving your claim of imperialistic actions prior to 1941. You are now devolving into ad hominem attacks. Excellent! Now crawl your pathetic self away back into whatever holier than thou cesspit you came out of and breathe deeply. Maybe we'll get lucky.
Nice collection of quotes and comments, perhaps much todo with bravado and some not even attributed. We'd never have yellow journalism, after all. No one wants to admit that all they did was stand around with their thumbs idling in various locales. Mix 1 part truth with 4 parts bravado, and you get some great quotes. None of that argues against the facts I quoted. Nor did you respond to the actual post other than proffer a list of previously gathered quotes in an attempt to make an emotional point. (Lots of emotion evident in those quotes.)
So, make a case. Every country wanted to expand trade with others to enrich themselves. That's what countries do. That doesn't make them imperialists. Countries abiding by treaties and coming to aid when called does not make invasions. Per your own quotes, aiding a country until it can stand on its own two feet (Philippines, Cuba, etc) certainly isn't imperialist.
So I suppose you cede the point, as you can not offer anything else in counterpoint of the facts in my previous post where I did exactly what you asked. Which, by the way, was insightful because I actually learned we were kinder than I would have thought in the 19th and early 20th century. Note that is a relative statement, not a qualitative one.
Daemonik is an apologist for American imperialism. All empires claim self defense or provocation for their wars of choice.
I'm not sure why you want to pretend that the United States changed overnight, but you are simply misinformed. But let me allow you the opportunity to support your claim:
From 1915 to 1941, the United States had occupied or temporarily invaded these nations, often during an election for "police" work. Please explain how these invasions were provoked, by country, if you don't mind:
I suppose I wouldn't have minded if you'd brought anything meaningful to the table.
China - by treaty request.
Panama - no invasion. Read the Treaty. Note that US offered to walk away from the treaty.
El Salvador - Um.... Never? Did you just list all the Latin American countries?
Cuba - Spanish American War
Mexico - Mexican rebels and federalists invaded parts of US and otherwise committed acts of war.
Haiti - This is a valid one - good job!
Dominican Republic - Spanish American War, no invasion afterwards
Honduras - Spanish American War, no invasion afterwards
Yugoslavia - Not in the timeline listed.
Guatemala - Spanish American War, no invasion afterwards
Turkey - 1919 - protection of US Consulate during Greek occupation. 1922 - with consent of both Greek and Turkish authorities.
Your entire list boils down to "Haiti" as the one instance where there was an invasion. Are you a revisionist by chance? Note that the Spanish-American war was declared by Spain and that Spain appears to have taken the initial military action(s). These were all Spanish colonies, there's more, and many were invaded in the course of the war. A significant number were returned to the control of their populations in relatively short order.
So, you've now been thoroughly debunked twice. Will you change your mind? I doubt it. You have an axe to grind, it seems. Facts be damned.
Sorry - been a little busy. Short and quick - Hawaii requested to be annexed. You can argue about the ruler changes etc, or the "marines landing" that were nothing more than there and admittedly should not have been, or the firing of the Minister to Hawaii, or the Wilcox Rebellion, etc.
All the Spanish American war pieces can be lumped under "Spain declared war" and also potentially engaged in the initial acts of war (sinking of US ship in Havana). That leaves Panama, which was done by treaty. You can call it dirty politics, or be on the side of the "losers", but the fact is we offered to not do the treaty and step away. Note that the treaty allowed for US troops in the Canal Zone.
I qualified nothing with "excessive", since you pasted that from a different thread, if you'll go up one or two, you'll see it was a direct quote from the person I was responding to. That aside - there was a completely different world view after 1941.
Actually - the US did not have a lot of involvement in WW1 until roughly the last year. WW2, the US mostly served as convoy protection, although they were more prone to engage Axis ships. Providing food and money is not directly engaging the enemy. No one says you have to sell oil to anyone. Roosevelt decided to stop supplying Japan with oil to get them to come to a diplomatic solution to Japanese aggression in Indo-China. The Spanish American war officially started with Spain declaring war.
We are not talking about the nature of man, or any of the pathetic excuses that have been made for every empire before ours that you have parroted so faithfully. We are talking about the actions of the United States, who currently lead the world for the last fifty years in the categories of:
But we weren't talking about the US in the last 50 years. We were talking about the US prior to 1941, or did you forget that? Or, more precisely, Daemonik has completely debunked your points. I would have, but they beat me to it. You see, I actually read up on the history before making my claim. Also knowing that the US was very against Imperialism at the time, not wanting to become Great Britain. They had enough issues with England, Indians, and Mexico/Spain. There were no unprovoked invasions prior to 1941that I found, just about every single one was attached to a current war or act of war, started by someone other than the US. (You'll probably bring up Hawaii, I'd have to research it and that seems pointless against your google regurgitation) Did all that change after 1941? Yes. Then you have points that can be made. Prior to that, pony up some facts.
Perhaps you should read up on why the Spanish American war started, and what the results were. The same could be said of the Barbary Wars. The Philippines were part of the Spanish American war, although that one probably comes closest to supporting your statement, if you move to the Philippine revolution. Note that in all cases, americans were attacked, and the US merely reacted, after trying other avenues first. That is not imperialism.
Funny enough, none of that really applied until after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Prior to that, the US was myopic to the extreme, and really appeared to only want to mind its own business, as far as excessive military, foreign intervention, etc. Fear of others in society was something that started to be brought forward in the 70s and 80s with hijackings, bombings, and hostages, mostly overseas, but didn't take hold locally until 2001, which could have been prevented IMHO with merely having followed a single piece of advice from the Israelis: secured cockpit doors.
This is very standardized! e.g., Safari is Shft-Cmd-Right and Left Arrows, Skype is Otp-Cmd right and left, Messages (Lion and ML) is Cmd-G / Shift Cmd-G for moving between chats. Adium requires Cmd- as far as I know. So it is entirely app dependent.
QuickSilver is your answer. I go a couple of steps further, since I am a very light spotlight user, I remap spotlight to CTRL-OPT-Spacebar, and then map QuickSilver to Cmd-Spacebar, and I don't look back. I'm a keyboard junkie - I also use Cmd-Tab and Cmd-` (the tilde key above the Tab) to move between apps and move between windows of the current app, respectively. Shift will reverse the order on those last two. I also rarely use Expose, and map my F keys to be real F keys. On my MBP I use the Func key to control the brightness and audio if needed.
Personally, Apple made wrong choices with Spotlight. It is both too powerful, and not powerful enough. I have over 10TB of internal disk space, mostly full, and as I develop software, we're talking millions of files of all types, along with a Gb of mail over many years. Spotlight is next to useless systemwide, although it works well enough within Mail. Maybe the real problem is its integration with Finder. Since I'm adept with shell commands, I've never bothered looking any further.
Other than that - the UI works well enough, stays out of my way, and with QuickSilver, I haven't had to change how I work with OS X since the Panther days.
Oops - its not commerce but speech. Tracking every person's contacts etc are not commerce in any way, form, or fashion, and has many precedents against it. Is that enough to dispute your assertion?
Probably because no one has tried this tact in a while. Perhaps we should start including it more, and make the most out of what is arguably the most important amendment to the Constitution, Commerce clause be damned.
But the 9th tackles it in a very simple way: Show me where in the Constitution it is enumerated that the government is allowed to do this. You can't? Then the government is not allowed to engage in this activity.
It goes from attempting to prove that the government is violating something to the government proving that it is allowed to do something. A whole different ball of wax. And a whole lot easier for the people.
Slashdot Mirror
There are people who cannot walk and talk at the same time. These same people cannot drive and talk either. There are other people who can talk and drive, and completely shut out the conversation if the driving situation calls for it (that would mean the conversation suffers) Unfortunately, trends indicate the first set seems to dominate.
This might not be generally known within the US, but what we refer to as the Vietnam War is known in Vietnam as the "American War". It's just too convenient to forget who was the aggressor.
Wouldn't that be "France" as the war started with them? But wait, France was supporting the Vietnamese emperor, so that would mean... the North were the aggressors. A little history goes a long way. FYI - the US was a late late late comer to this particular war, and was not an aggressor.
It made me chuckle. Warcraft3? I largely stopped playing computer games before then. :)
And yet, somehow, the US still outspends the next biggest spender almost 3 fold, and more than the next 10 biggest spenders. It also is the only country with a missile shield technology that has been deployed and used, several iterations in fact. So where did you get your data from?
A living human has a pump and breathes air. A running car has a pump and breathes air. A running car is a living human.
Good try. Similar features do not create equality. You have failed to make your case.
The US did some of those things, yes. It was not unique, nor even exceptional in this. It did not prevent the nations of Haiti, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Cuba, etc from running themselves, rather it either allied with the rulers or took colonies from others after being attacked in war. Some of the countries we had treaties with had suffered waves of governmental changes prior to the alliances, and if we'd left some of those earlier than we did that were colonies of defeated enemies, well, you'd have had lots more strige. The Philippines are a specific case in point there, as the Moro Rebellion, to name just one, wasn't against the US specifically, but against the rest of the people of the Philippines.
Read the history for the facts - you seem to want to bend it to your own warped moral sense of outrage. I make no excuses. Life was rough, and still is, in many of those countries and others. Native Americans are a special case, much like the Australian aborigines or native peoples of any land before the second plus wave came along. There are very very few original peoples on any land. In fact, even the Native Americans aren't the original people in the Americas, their DNA does not match those of the Clovis people, for instance, nor several of the ancient remains of Pacific Islander civilizations found in central and South America. Perhaps the cycle didn't start with these "natives" but far far earlier, and they were but one wave of many. The only strongly suspected original peoples in the world that I'm aware of are in Australia and the Pacific Islands.
And you're pretty funny - the only reason I continue to post - you keep straying from the original topic - Imperialistic expansion of the US pre 1941. You don't answer a single point. I give you the examples you asked for, and then you choose to make a commentary about America like it's a big evil, which I suspect is your actual goal. Hopefully you live somewhere else, otherwise your self-loathing would be clinical in scope. Yet you fail to argue the actual point in every post, drawing up new emotional ties to attempt to hammer home your illogical argument. Take the statement about invading a land and killing, displacing, enslaving or keeping the inhabitants as second class citizens. The only argument you could have made that was remotely close was the treatment of the Native Americans, which is and was reprehensible, much like Japan's treatment of Koreans and Chinese, or the treatment of Australian aborigines or the Bushmen of southern Africa, to name just a few. Unfortunately for you, the colonization period was done more than a hundred years prior to the US existing, and in fact, the US owes its existence precisely due to the Imperialism central to this discussion. From the US inception onward, what I stated is true. The statement about black slaves is a red herring in this case, because every one of the named Imperialists mentioned above engaged and profited from slavery in some form or fashion, with the difference being that the US didn't go out and enslave people, but purchased already enslaved people. There might not be much of a difference, but there is a difference, especially in the context of Imperialism.
Spain - 1493-1900, England 1580-1997, France 1600s - 1960, Netherlands 1600s - 1950s, Japan - ~1900-1945 are all classical examples. You can start there - essentially the claiming of land and resources while killing, displacing, enslaving or keeping the inhabitants as second class citizens. The US's claiming of contiguous land was the result of purchases, petitions, or wars inflicted upon it with few exceptions.
No, no it won't. Cognitive dissonance will prevent it. They have convinced themselves that they are good people on no basis whatsoever, and in order to protect that belief they will convince themselves that there is no way to achieve their goal but to ride roughshod over the constitution. Then they'll tell themselves that it's OK to violate the constitution as long as you're doing it to protect the constitution. Unfortunately, holding such a clearly contradictory belief is a kind of insanity.
Much like the belief that one's invisible friend will reward their non-existent soul upon death? There's apparently 80% insane people in the world. or at least the US, per your definition above.
No - there are people who think its right to do this, there always will be.
Different times, different standards. Or are you going to rail against a whole host of other sick crap too? There's no shortage, like those 10 year old Philippine boys? (Note the date) You really shouldn't open such a shoddy line of attack, only unschooled, dim witted people try that, or those without a leg to stand on. And you still haven't actually gotten back to the main point of proving your claim of imperialistic actions prior to 1941. You are now devolving into ad hominem attacks. Excellent! Now crawl your pathetic self away back into whatever holier than thou cesspit you came out of and breathe deeply. Maybe we'll get lucky.
Nice collection of quotes and comments, perhaps much todo with bravado and some not even attributed. We'd never have yellow journalism, after all. No one wants to admit that all they did was stand around with their thumbs idling in various locales. Mix 1 part truth with 4 parts bravado, and you get some great quotes. None of that argues against the facts I quoted. Nor did you respond to the actual post other than proffer a list of previously gathered quotes in an attempt to make an emotional point. (Lots of emotion evident in those quotes.)
So, make a case. Every country wanted to expand trade with others to enrich themselves. That's what countries do. That doesn't make them imperialists. Countries abiding by treaties and coming to aid when called does not make invasions. Per your own quotes, aiding a country until it can stand on its own two feet (Philippines, Cuba, etc) certainly isn't imperialist.
So I suppose you cede the point, as you can not offer anything else in counterpoint of the facts in my previous post where I did exactly what you asked. Which, by the way, was insightful because I actually learned we were kinder than I would have thought in the 19th and early 20th century. Note that is a relative statement, not a qualitative one.
Daemonik is an apologist for American imperialism. All empires claim self defense or provocation for their wars of choice.
I'm not sure why you want to pretend that the United States changed overnight, but you are simply misinformed. But let me allow you the opportunity to support your claim:
From 1915 to 1941, the United States had occupied or temporarily invaded these nations, often during an election for "police" work. Please explain how these invasions were provoked, by country, if you don't mind:
I suppose I wouldn't have minded if you'd brought anything meaningful to the table.
China - by treaty request.
Panama - no invasion. Read the Treaty. Note that US offered to walk away from the treaty.
El Salvador - Um.... Never? Did you just list all the Latin American countries?
Cuba - Spanish American War
Mexico - Mexican rebels and federalists invaded parts of US and otherwise committed acts of war.
Haiti - This is a valid one - good job!
Dominican Republic - Spanish American War, no invasion afterwards
Honduras - Spanish American War, no invasion afterwards
Yugoslavia - Not in the timeline listed.
Guatemala - Spanish American War, no invasion afterwards
Turkey - 1919 - protection of US Consulate during Greek occupation. 1922 - with consent of both Greek and Turkish authorities.
Your entire list boils down to "Haiti" as the one instance where there was an invasion. Are you a revisionist by chance? Note that the Spanish-American war was declared by Spain and that Spain appears to have taken the initial military action(s). These were all Spanish colonies, there's more, and many were invaded in the course of the war. A significant number were returned to the control of their populations in relatively short order.
So, you've now been thoroughly debunked twice. Will you change your mind? I doubt it. You have an axe to grind, it seems. Facts be damned.
Sorry - been a little busy. Short and quick - Hawaii requested to be annexed. You can argue about the ruler changes etc, or the "marines landing" that were nothing more than there and admittedly should not have been, or the firing of the Minister to Hawaii, or the Wilcox Rebellion, etc.
All the Spanish American war pieces can be lumped under "Spain declared war" and also potentially engaged in the initial acts of war (sinking of US ship in Havana). That leaves Panama, which was done by treaty. You can call it dirty politics, or be on the side of the "losers", but the fact is we offered to not do the treaty and step away. Note that the treaty allowed for US troops in the Canal Zone.
I qualified nothing with "excessive", since you pasted that from a different thread, if you'll go up one or two, you'll see it was a direct quote from the person I was responding to. That aside - there was a completely different world view after 1941.
That would be about the only one that really applies, I'll give you that one. 1 invasion does not an imperialist make, however.
Actually - the US did not have a lot of involvement in WW1 until roughly the last year. WW2, the US mostly served as convoy protection, although they were more prone to engage Axis ships. Providing food and money is not directly engaging the enemy. No one says you have to sell oil to anyone. Roosevelt decided to stop supplying Japan with oil to get them to come to a diplomatic solution to Japanese aggression in Indo-China. The Spanish American war officially started with Spain declaring war.
We are not talking about the nature of man, or any of the pathetic excuses that have been made for every empire before ours that you have parroted so faithfully. We are talking about the actions of the United States, who currently lead the world for the last fifty years in the categories of:
But we weren't talking about the US in the last 50 years. We were talking about the US prior to 1941, or did you forget that? Or, more precisely, Daemonik has completely debunked your points. I would have, but they beat me to it. You see, I actually read up on the history before making my claim. Also knowing that the US was very against Imperialism at the time, not wanting to become Great Britain. They had enough issues with England, Indians, and Mexico/Spain. There were no unprovoked invasions prior to 1941that I found, just about every single one was attached to a current war or act of war, started by someone other than the US. (You'll probably bring up Hawaii, I'd have to research it and that seems pointless against your google regurgitation) Did all that change after 1941? Yes. Then you have points that can be made. Prior to that, pony up some facts.
Perhaps you should read up on why the Spanish American war started, and what the results were. The same could be said of the Barbary Wars. The Philippines were part of the Spanish American war, although that one probably comes closest to supporting your statement, if you move to the Philippine revolution. Note that in all cases, americans were attacked, and the US merely reacted, after trying other avenues first. That is not imperialism.
Funny enough, none of that really applied until after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Prior to that, the US was myopic to the extreme, and really appeared to only want to mind its own business, as far as excessive military, foreign intervention, etc. Fear of others in society was something that started to be brought forward in the 70s and 80s with hijackings, bombings, and hostages, mostly overseas, but didn't take hold locally until 2001, which could have been prevented IMHO with merely having followed a single piece of advice from the Israelis: secured cockpit doors.
For Adium - Cmd-
This is very standardized! e.g., Safari is Shft-Cmd-Right and Left Arrows, Skype is Otp-Cmd right and left, Messages (Lion and ML) is Cmd-G / Shift Cmd-G for moving between chats. Adium requires Cmd- as far as I know. So it is entirely app dependent.
QuickSilver is your answer. I go a couple of steps further, since I am a very light spotlight user, I remap spotlight to CTRL-OPT-Spacebar, and then map QuickSilver to Cmd-Spacebar, and I don't look back. I'm a keyboard junkie - I also use Cmd-Tab and Cmd-` (the tilde key above the Tab) to move between apps and move between windows of the current app, respectively. Shift will reverse the order on those last two. I also rarely use Expose, and map my F keys to be real F keys. On my MBP I use the Func key to control the brightness and audio if needed.
Personally, Apple made wrong choices with Spotlight. It is both too powerful, and not powerful enough. I have over 10TB of internal disk space, mostly full, and as I develop software, we're talking millions of files of all types, along with a Gb of mail over many years. Spotlight is next to useless systemwide, although it works well enough within Mail. Maybe the real problem is its integration with Finder. Since I'm adept with shell commands, I've never bothered looking any further.
Other than that - the UI works well enough, stays out of my way, and with QuickSilver, I haven't had to change how I work with OS X since the Panther days.
VLC was never illegal. Unpopular with Hollywood DRM advocates, maybe, but never illegal.
Oops - its not commerce but speech. Tracking every person's contacts etc are not commerce in any way, form, or fashion, and has many precedents against it. Is that enough to dispute your assertion?
Probably because no one has tried this tact in a while. Perhaps we should start including it more, and make the most out of what is arguably the most important amendment to the Constitution, Commerce clause be damned.
But the 9th tackles it in a very simple way: Show me where in the Constitution it is enumerated that the government is allowed to do this. You can't? Then the government is not allowed to engage in this activity.
It goes from attempting to prove that the government is violating something to the government proving that it is allowed to do something. A whole different ball of wax. And a whole lot easier for the people.