Spence, you must not have read the quote of ScottW that i agreed with:

Scottw Quote:
"I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess. "

I never said Saddam had anything to do with the first WTC bombing, the Cole, or the 2nd WTC bombing.
My post was a quick chronological list from my memory of how Saddam,
Al Qaeda and radical Islam started and got us into this mess.

All Saddam had to do, if he didn't have any WMD, was allow another inspection
by the UN. He wouldn't, which added more doubt as to him having them or not.

So he chose to be invaded instead, being the crazy loon he was, and he did
start the Gulf War.

You must have a great memory, remembering Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn"
antidote about Iraq. ;)

Again, this isn't really true. Reread your history...

And as for Saddam "starting this". He was but a player in a very large production. Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait we'd still be having the exact same issues today.

-spence

uh oh...Spence's Sunday morning tinfoil hat conspiracy talk...:rotf2:

he was actually the chief instigator of an awful lot of bad that was going on in his own country as well as many others....and, you have absolutely no idea what issues we'd be having today had Saddam not invaded Kuwait...are you holding seances again?

So you really want me to believe that an incompetent and corrupted organization could eliminate all traces of an active WMD program and stockpiles of weapons while under US/UN scrutiny?

That simply defies reason.

Read the Duelfer report. I believe they were payed a government paycheck and nothing more.

As for evidence Sada is lying, you're just playing the old game argumentum ad ignorantiam!


Not true, the entire basis for urgency was that Saddam had existing WMD and a relationship with alQaeda.

Going into the war there was certainly much that was unknown, and why the International community was behind Bush with a new inspection regime.

Where it all turned was with the Powell speech.

The inspections were not providing the evidence to justify the war his foreign policy team so dearly wanted. Rather than let Blix finish his report, they "shot the messenger" and pressed forward breaking up the International coalition in the process.

I'm not one that believes Bush personally lied about WMD. Frankly I think he was just following the lead of those entrusted to guide him. Did his closest advisors misrepresent the case to the American people and "market" a war of choice? All evidence seems to indicate they certainly did...

-spence

And the ground work was put in place by Clinton and the urgency caused by the 9/11 attacks.
And now your hero is following the Bush plan. Your words not mine. Why the free pass?

This whole "Spreading Democracy" mantra through war is a bs statement. Our dealings with Taiwan, that's how you spread democracy. Bush used the full force of the US military to essentially assassinate a dictator.

You're comment about "Spreading democracy ... IS the right thing to do" is nothing more than modern day Imperialism.

He's not. I'm pissed at that tract.

I was hoping by now we'd be phasing out of Iraq... Spence hit on a lot of the reasons, but basically, we took SH out, we should have been phasing out then, letting them figure their future out, not us trying to dictate it to them. I've spent the entire war saying 'support the troops, not the war' and that has not changed for me.

A few months-year ago, I was pro-focusing on Afghanistan, but now I fear it is slipping into 'Nam style unwinnable war short of Nuking it, which I am not advocating.. monitor it closely, keep an eye out for Bin laden and Al Queda and get our boys home.

No need for me to read my history and read others opinions,
i lived through it and followed it very closely at the time.

Clinton policy was driven by actions during his second term. Saddam was increasingly flaunting the UN. This led to many calls for increased action, even by Democrats...but nobody (aside from the the neocons) was looking for an invasion.

In 2001 Saddam wasn't even being seen as much of a threat.

Both Powell and Rice made strong statements in the months before 9/11 that sanctions were working and Saddam was contained.

Then, suddenly, Saddam was the trigger for a nuke attack in the USA.

So I don't see how Clinton laid the groundwork for anything.

-spence

probably all taken out of context


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- #^&#^&#^&#^& Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Use the search function and you'll probably see my explaining exactly why. We've been down this road before...

-spence

U R right Spence. :uhuh:

Go back and google Clinton's words about Saddam. Sounds like the speach given by Powell prior to Bush removing Saddam from power. His inaction is what led to Saddam laughing at the UN and by the way,IMO, the attack on the Trade Centers.
Bombing an asprin factory during the Lewinsky "crisis" doesn't count as a foreign policy.

why would I bother to search for your "old spin" ?

the dems were pretty consistent on Saddam right up until the point that they realized that they could politicize the war....Spence is finally right about one thing though...we've been around and around on this before, he seems to enjoy revising history....and we have a clown in the White House that could actually create another Vietnam....a QUAGMAYAAAA! as TED would say...

I've probably read most of them already. You simply can't take a speech from one year and blankly apply it to a situation years into the future. If the intent is to justify war, that's downright reckless and unethical. We all know Clinton thought Iraq was a threat...and that he didn't go to war over it.

As to the bombing of the WTC in 1993, to think that this was triggered by Clinton's Iraq policy is laughable. Please cite some references...

-spence

So you can read and learn.

-spence

I was using Spence's phrase "spreading democracy" which is a bit disdainful--I wouldn't have thought of such a phrase. Even he admitted that you can't "spread democracy." Perhaps you didn't read that banter back and forth and thought I had made up the phrase. Even so, you kind of made my head spin by equating "spreading democracy" to Imperialism. Almost like saying charity is the work of the devil.

As for our dealings with Taiwan as an example of "how you spread democracy", do you mean our military power being a deterrent to Mainland China's takeover of Taiwan? Do you mean providing Taiwan a market for its goods? I am intrigued, please explain. And, WOW, "assassinate"? This is a new method of assassination--warn someone for several months of your intentions, give him opportunities to avoid the "assassination", and after getting him, letting someone else finish the job, then, improving the lot of what and who he owned.

BTW, I wasn't chanting a "spreading democracy" THROUGH WAR mantra. Again, it was a response to Spence. There is, also BTW, a general misconception about the importance of war. So many of us like to quote Santayana's phrase that those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. But we shun, or even more likely, aren't aware of another phrase by him--"there is eternal war in nature." He also said that war is merely resistance to change. So long as the invaded has the will and power to resist the invader, there will be war. And his dictum can be applied, not only to the "human condition" but to all of life, to all of existence. When you are enjoying a "moment of peace", be aware that all around you, and within you, countless wars are taking place. All are wars of survival. And, as Santayana also said, to live well, you must be victorious. Everything you have is a result of some war. Your very life will end when you are to weak to defeat what attacks you every minute of your existence. We are products of war, war informs everything we do. We have learned, through lessons of history, by evolution, to cooperate when it is to our benefit, when it enhances our survival, not when it is for acquiesence to some platonic ideal

I mean by supporting the people's choice to have a democratic government, instead of forcing it upon them. The Taiwanese people want a democratic state. The US supports them in that measure - be it with a military backing (just as we support our other allies with our military), economic support (like we give to the Europeans) and diplomatic support.

My correlation of the US "Spreading Democracy" (a term which is Bush chanted quite frequently) and Imperialism is through the methods in which democracy was 'given' to the Iraqi people - through the military ousting of the previous government. My relationship to imperialism lies within your statement "Spreading democracy ... IS the right thing to do."

Overthrowing a government with our military to install a democratic one is what I am calling modern day Imperialism.

Correct. I'm inserting a concept into the conversation that I didn't hear on the radio or read on some website. It's an observation/opinion that I have formed on my own. I understand that is a novel concept for many of the conservatives in here.

Very novel, indeed! I can see that you don't drink the Kool-Aid. At least not until you mix it with something more potent, something to truly stir the imagination--well beyond the musty, boring, pedestrian mind of some conservatives. Happy dreams, my boy, your creativity will take you far.

PS--it's amazing how much the meaning of words can change when they get "progressively" politicized.

Drinking the Kool-Aid huh? When exactly has any comment referencing a phrase like modern day Imperialism ever been mentioned?

Naom Chonsky, left wing mags and blogs, even "centrist" ones. Even our relationship with Taiwan would be considered modern day imperialism. Our whole history would be considered modern day imperialism. Now that the US exists, it should not mix, meddle, suggest, or in any way influence a lesser state lest it become a modern day imperialist. Not to mention that we SHOULDN'T exist because so much, if not all, our past actions could be construed as modern day imperialism. Of course that would be re-writing history to suit the "modern" mind. But re-writing history seems to be the leftist mode, so, for the "modern" mind it's ok to do so.

Your argument is about as valid as people that state I can't complain about illegal immigrants because we were all immigrants at one point.

Also, modern is a relative term meaning "characteristic of present-day". As such, the english, french and spanish coming to the new world and taking it from the indians was imperialistic, but certainly not modern-day imperialism since it happened three hundred years ago. I would also mention that expanding imperialistic government policies are not internationally acceptable any longer.

pretty funny... this was included in the definition of imperialism at Answers.com

Policy of systematic domination and exploitation of a country by another country or an empire. Marxists assert that the United States engages in imperialism because powerful U.S. Businesses need to protect their foreign markets.

Marxists. :smash:

Next you'll start quoting PETA with regards to animal rights.

JD, maybe you are a "Modern-Day" Marxist

But, Johnny, I was merely answering your question "when exactly has any comment referencing a phrase like modern day imperialism ever been mentioned?" If you google "modern day imperialism" you'll find that you are not the first to ust the phrase, and the use of it (fairly wide spread in leftist talk) pretty much corresponds to my response to your question--which, BTW, shows how you contradict yourself when you say "our dealings with Taiwan, that's how you spread democracy." Our dealings with Taiwan would be considered, by those using the phrase before you, as modern day imperialism.

It would be ignorant for me to try to say I coined the term "modern-day imperialism". Now-a-days, you can google almost any collection of random words and find some response. My intention was, when have you heard anyone reference the term modern-day imperialism when talking about Iraq. I have not heard it referenced that way before.

But, if you want to nit-pick three words to spin away from what the actual point is, I commend you on trying to think it would work.

Regardless of your poor attempt to take a fine-toothed comb to my words and pick them apart, I still stand that Bush's approach to Iraq and all his "Spreading Democracy" references are Imperialistic.

No, it strongly suggests the threat was not as characterized and that sanctions appeared to be working. He didn't just shut things down, the WMD appear to have been destroyed a decade earlier.

Would you expect a tyrant like Saddam to stop everything cold turkey? Of course not, but this is a looooonnnngggg way from having a functional weapons programs, or more importantly, the vast stockpiles the Administration argued were there.

Weak...

Kay was referring to WMD parts rather than stockpiles of weapons.

But all this "Saddam was a sneaky bad guy" stuff is really moot. At what point does it justify war? Remember the war? Remember the Saddam -> stockpiles of WMD -> Bin Laden connection that was the justification for a massive and urgent action?

The intent or ability to restart programs if sanctions are lifted doesn't provide the justification for urgency, in fact it blows a rather large hole in the Administrations argument.

Remember, the Blix team before the war was essentially turning up the exact same information.

If you read the Duelfer report it's clear the "evidence" indicated Saddam destroyed his WMD in 1991, the last biological weapons facility in 1996 and that his production capacity had eroded dramatically since then.

You don't actually read my posts do you?

-spence

Fuel to the fire.
Saddam did have WMD'S

Some like to over look the fact that Saddam ordered the killing of thousands of Kurds in the north. And how did he do this? In 1989 or there abouts take or give a year he ordered his air force to bomb a kurd village knowing that the kurds would go to their bomb shelters dug in the earth. He was correct and the air force dropped mustard and other nerve gases that lays on or finds its way into low ground levels. Over 60,000 Kurds mostly women and children were killed. Killing 60,000 people is mass destruction and he used bombs filled with these gases, therefore becomes weapons of mass destruction.

You will always have the dis-believers as you have people who believe that there was no holocaust.

What fuel? Those events took place two years before the Gulf War. At the completion of which the WMDs were destroyed.

No one is arguing that Saddam possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction at one point in time, but that supposed concrete proof (with pictures) of WMD manufacturing facilities and pictures of the actual weapons was horribly incorrect and possibly fabricated.

It's one thing to agree with substantial proof of Saddam not possessing any weapons. It's another for a quack job to turn a blind eye to the massacre of millions because he thinks everyone of a certain religion should be vaporized. Your relationship of the two situations is appalling.



As a note, the Wikipedia page on the Gulf War has a quote from #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney, United States Secretary of Defense during the conflict, at the end of the war in 1992 (my emphasis added):
Oh how the times have changed. If he had only taken his own advice, we wouldn't be in this mess, over 4,250 supremely honorable service members would still be alive, 30,000+ wouldn't be injured and the US wouldn't have spent almost $700billion dollars.

Why is it that some people find it so revolting to think critically about the USA, or worse yet, actually apply our own standards to our own behavior?

God forbid we admit that at times our own %$%$%$%$ doesn't stink.

Of course to do so much be a sign of weakness, or a viral based bout of Liberalism. Those who's minds are so polluted have their DNA firmly rooted in the finest Marxist traditions, and ScottW has the quotes to prove it.

One of my favorite critics of the US was my first cousin (once removed) Terry Spencer. He was quite Liberal and vehemently against the Iraq war on the basis that it was not a "preemptive" war as advertised, but rather a "preventive" war. How we could think that such influence in the region, primarily to secure our vital interests, couldn't be seen as somewhat imperialistic was beyond him. Look at the US military footprint across the planet...Instead of denying this perhaps the proponents should embrace the notion.

I'm sure if Terry were here to post his own thoughts he'd be quickly painted with the same pathetic and worn out talking points born from a talk radio inspired neo-McCarthyistic spasm.

Sadly, Terry passed away last year. Probably a better "American" than I, or any of us will every be.

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;709842]Why is it that some people find it so revolting to think critically about the USA, or worse yet, actually apply our own standards to our own behavior?

I'm not sure why you chose my response to JohnnyD referring to use of the phrase "modern day imperialism." What is in that response that implies I'm revolted by criticism of USA or that I don't apply my own standards to my own behavior? I think critically of OUR country almost daily. My posts in these threads are replies to fellow citizens of the USA. We all have a personal point of view, mine is no less important or less American than yours. Are you revolted by MY opinions?

God forbid we admit that at times our own %$%$%$%$ doesn't stink.

I often think my verbal feces stink. Do you ever feel the same about yours?

Of course to do so much be a sign of weakness, or a viral based bout of Liberalism. Those who's minds are so polluted have their DNA firmly rooted in the finest Marxist traditions, and ScottW has the quotes to prove it.

Historically, we are rooted in classical liberalism/conservatism, naturalism, evolutionary capitalism. It is natural for those still rooted such to reject Marxism. But the resistance to Marxism/socialism/progressivism is weakening, and the tide may turn. Can you blame old line Americans for defending their beliefs? Quite contrary to "a sign of weakness", it is seen as a sign of growing strength to view the growing numbers of youth, especially those educated in what conservatives feel are bastions of Marxism, along with the combined numbers of immigrants, minorities, laborites, gays, feminists, etc., who, for various reasons, sometimes in opposition to "conservatism," are swelling the "progressive" ranks,

One of my favorite critics of the US was my first cousin (once removed) Terry Spencer. He was quite Liberal and vehemently against the Iraq war on the basis that it was not a "preemptive" war as advertised, but rather a "preventive" war. How we could think that such influence in the region, primarily to secure our vital interests, couldn't be seen as somewhat imperialistic was beyond him. Look at the US military footprint across the planet...Instead of denying this perhaps the proponents should embrace the notion.

He is, by your account, an accomplished, intelligent, patriotic, wonderful man who has led a full, satisfying life. If I were prone to jealousy, I would be jealous. I truly mean that as a compliment.

I'm sure if Terry were here to post his own thoughts he'd be quickly painted with the same pathetic and worn out talking points born from a talk radio inspired neo-McCarthyistic spasm.-spence[QUOTE]

It sounds like he would make, as you do, some strong points. I don't know how quickly he would be painted, but you have quickly turned from reflection to revolting, nasty remarks. Are those an application of your own standards?

I sense a true loss in the passing of Terry. I apologize if anything I've said here is in any way offensive, that is not intended. Much as I may have disagreed with some of his opinions, I would that he were still here.

Good for you! And you have a host of leftists, some FAR left (which is OK--just mentioning it for clarity) who agree with you, using the EXACT phrase "modern day imperialism" to express their views on Bush's Iraq policy. And, unless there is some fine distinction between their definition and yours, you are still contradicting yourself when you say our relation with Taiwan is the way to spread democracy, since the predominent, current use of the phrase "modern day imperialism" defines our relation to Taiwan. Of course, you may have invented a specific, special use of the phrase that only applies to special instances of your choice. That, of course, by definition, is unarguable.

Your posts stated that Obama has pretty much continued Bushes flawed policy then depends on NATO for 10 years. Is that a clear objective and an exit strategy?

As this thread is winding down, I would like to more clearly reply to JohnnyD and Spence re: "modern day imperialsm" and "somewhat imperialistic" describing our invasion of Iraq.

Classical empires, though brutal (what wasn't in their time), hastened the uniting of people and created good as well as ill. The 400 years of Pax Romana was beneficial. The British Empire brought progress and union, and the U.S. is a direct result. In the 1960s the radical left saw opportunity to influence the counter-cultural revolution and anti-Vietnam war sentiments in its direction. Its only real power to influence a generation of youth was through words, especially by the politicization of words. One of the most influential words was IMPERIALIST. The nasty trick of slick, politicized language is to slide a word away from its original meaning and use it to describe a loosely similar entity--sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. The dictionary definition of imperialism (the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other natioins) didn't quite fit but was close enough, so America was described by the hard left as an imperialist, capitalist running dog pig. This also had the effect of erasing any positive connotation. Imperialism was now thoroughly bad. The radical view could not survive but politicized words did. And imperialism evolved into the many modern day imperialisms--economic imperialism, cultural imperialism, military imperialism, religious imperialism, political imperialism, ACTUAL imperialism, or, now any new imperialisms we wish to create. How about new ones like, say, family imperialism, relational imperialism, baseball imperialism, gender imperialism, sexual imperialism, racial imperialism, insurance imperialism, and on and on. Obviously, this destroys any connectioin to the original definitions of imperialism except for a shadowy similarity. The word, essentialy, loses any intrinsic meaning, This is similar to what George Orwell says in his essay "Politics and the English Language" about the word "fascism" no longer having any meaning other than signifying "something not desirable."

Certainly, it is good to criticize us when we do bad. But can we think of a better word than imperialism or imperialistic? We are not an empire. We don't have an emperor. We haven't territorially acquired Iraq nor established economic or political hegemony over it. Saying that our action in Iraq is modern day imperialism is using a politicized word that has lost all meaning and retained only some vague inflamatory connotation. It sounds authoritative to say that invading Iraq is modern day imperialism, but what does that mean? It is convenient to use the phrase because it excuses you from saying what that "something not desirable" actually is. And when one cannot find words to describe a supposed concept, that often implies that the concept does not actually exist--at least not in some well thought-out thesis. Unmuddle your thinking, then you can give us the hell we deserve. And saying that the invasion was "somewhat" imperialistic is not only hedging on whether it was or not, but it is qualifying a meaningless dead metaphor. What really does "somewhat imperialistic" mean? The hard left, on the other hand, is happy to throw a politicized metaphor that means "something not desirable" at America to influence the uninformed masses who are easily persuaded by the sound of words regardless of their lack of substance. For those with some historical insight, however, such phrases are an insult to our intellilgence.