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.

So I'll ask again....Why are we here and what's the end game? Same questions I heard over and over about Bush. What are we trying to accomplish? The same thing Bush was accomplishing in Iraq? Nation building?

Yes, and I'll repeat my first post too:

"I would like to know that too. The silence is deafening."

I thought the war was the reason he won the election. I guess thereal agenda here was socialism. I'll have to hand it to him, he really knows how to play on a persons emotions. At least the people that make decisions based on them.

The reason he won the election is because people were scared of McCain continuing the Bush agenda, everything about Palin, and the Republicans buried themselves deep in the muck. Now the Democrats are doing the same thing.

Didn't you guys read the thread? I think this dude outlined the high-level strategy pretty well.

-spence

:rotf2: You also said he was following along with the Bush plan. Is it Bush's high-level strategy?

????

Some overlap, but Obama certainly wants to shift focus from Iraq and more importantly treat Afghanistan and Pakistan as a joint problem. This is different from Bush who simply wanted NATO to carry the water so he could focus on Iraq.

-spence

Are you saying that Bush was forever going to focus on Iraq and that he was never going to turn defence over to the Iraqi military, and that he would not return his focus to Afghanistan?

He said on Letterman last night that he won't commit anymore troops until he comes up with a plan. If I'm not mistaken, I thought he had a plan and already had more troops over there. WTF