In defense of American imperialism (reject, incarnation, blood, mission)

[Natas]

Originally Posted by Theodore

Oh goodie, another flaming lefty.

We are going to have fun here, I can just feel it.

So, if I likewise use your astounding powers of observation, I'd say you must be a flaming rightie that attended Liberty University, where you were an errand boy for Jerry Falwell.
Fox news is your sole source of information, and you think Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are some kind of deities.
I gotta admit, that WAS kinda fun!

However; let's try to stay civil. If you are finished making personal attacks, maybe you could actually provide some substance.

Originally Posted by Theodore

This is the only part that made any sense.

Well, I'm glad you at least picked up on that part.

Originally Posted by Theodore

Equating the US with German fantasies of expanding ze motherland; how original.

Not at all. Only the fantasies of Babcock and his like-minded friends.

Originally Posted by Theodore

A major difference between the two ideologies is that Germany, and most other imperialist countries of the past, wanted to colonize the countries that they invaded.

America has a history after WW2 of democratizing and rehabilitating the countries we defeat in war. Then we leave.

Don’t you agree that’s a huge difference?

?.. Babcock is writing about Imperialism not colonizing, democratizing or rehabilitating. You posted it, so surely
you realized that.

"Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial conquest or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries."Source

The ideology of Babcock and his ilk seems to be, "We represent a force for good in the world". This smacks more of Colonialism rather then imperialism.

"Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory and people outside its own boundaries, often to facilitate economic domination over their resources, labor, and usually markets. The term also refers to a set of beliefs used to legitimize or promote this system, especially the belief that the mores of the colonizer are superior to those of the colonized." Source

[Feathers in Hair]

The nice thing about being a flaming lefty is that we've got an easy way to make s'mores.

[Natas]

Originally Posted by FeathersinHair

The nice thing about being a flaming lefty is that we've got an easy way to make s'mores.

Not to mention shish ka bobs! ;>)

[Theodore]

Originally Posted by Natas

?.. Babcock is writing about Imperialism not colonizing, democratizing or rehabilitating. You posted it, so surely you realized that.

I made that distinction because you brought up colonialism with your blurb by Friedrich Fabri.

The ideology of Babcock and his ilk seems to be, "We represent a force for good in the world". This smacks more of Colonialism rather then imperialism.

Only to you. We never had any intentions of colonizing Iraq no matter how you twist the definition. We went there to throw Saddam out of power, establish a free and democratic government and fight terrorists. And that’s what we’re doing.

You can go on and on about oil and Haliburton and Bush lied and all the rest of the tired slogans the malcontented use, but the reality coming out of Iraq doesn’t support them.

The left in this country refuses to admit that maybe there was a noble and moral purpose behind this war. They don’t want to hear the good news coming out of Iraq. They don’t want to listen to the thousands of Iraqi’s who cheer our troops as liberators. They will not see that we have terrorism on the run and that we are winning the war. Why? Because to admit any of these things would be to say Bush was right about Iraq.

I think time is going to prove that we did the right thing in the Middle east.

[The Black Whirlwind]

Originally Posted by Theodore

The left in this country refuses to admit that maybe there was a noble and moral purpose behind this war. They don’t want to hear the good news coming out of Iraq. They don’t want to listen to the thousands of Iraqi’s who cheer our troops as liberators. They will not see that we have terrorism on the run and that we are winning the war. Why? Because to admit any of these things would be to say Bush was right about Iraq.

I think time is going to prove that we did the right thing in the Middle east.

there is a noble purpose for the war, the liberation of the Iraqis from an evil dictator, a mass-murderer, and all-around a-hole. This is true, Iraq is probabaly in a much better state now than it used to be under Saddam. But the thing i dont get is, 'why iraq?' Why did we choose to invade Iraq when there are plenty of other places like North Korea or Iran (both of which are delving into a nuclear lifestyle)? Our original purpose for the war was to find and eliminate WMD's, which we have yet to do. Since no WMD's were found, wouldn't it be reasonable to pack up and leave? No, bush changed his tune and said that it was now a battle to liberate Iraq. Why would he do this if our main goal was dashed to the ground? Was it for the rich oilfields below the ground? or is it really to liberate Iraq? You tell me.

[Fluffy]

Imperialism has received bad press for most of the last hundred years. We think of pith helmets when we hear the word, and tiger hunts, and pathetic little bands in remote Indian provinces playing "God Save the King." We think of a stiff upper lip that looks, over time, more like foolish bravado than noble resolve. We think of colonial hubris and the blind assertion of cultural superiority.

If you think that the things in the above quotation are bad then I fail to see how you cannot view the imperial efforts before 200 years ago as being even worse. Infact, in my humble opinion, imperial activities have gotten vastly better in modern years than those previously.

Especially the Romans!!!! Look I'm not even trying to suggest that your views are on the level of facism but such an argument is immensely similar to that used by Mussolini to justify his quest of a new Holy Roman Empire. If you think Nazism was bad, one look at the scale of atrocities under Roman rule will be enough to have you quaking in your boots.

How can you even begin to suggest that Imperialism, whether American or not, is worthy of any sort of merit?

[Natas]

Originally Posted by Theodore

I made that distinction because you brought up colonialism with your blurb by Friedrich Fabri.

The subject of Fabri's discussion was Imperialism. The fact that he used the words colonies and colonial one time each in this, "Blurb", as you call it, doesn't mean the subject was therefore colonialism. If it had been an article dealing with the granting of freedom to slaves, and the writer had used the words, "Shackles and shackled", would you have likewise made the distinction that the discussion was about shackles?

Originally Posted by Theodore

Only to you. We never had any intentions of colonizing Iraq no matter how you twist the definition.

If you would have bothered to look the words, "Colonizing" and "Colonialism" up, you would have found how you were the one twisting the definitions.

"Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory and people outside its own boundaries, often to facilitate economic domination over their resources, labor, and usually markets. The term also refers to a set of beliefs used to legitimize or promote this system, especially the belief that the mores of the colonizer are superior to those of the colonized." Source

"Human colonization is not to be confused with colonialism or imperialism, colonization just means people immigrating en masse to one relatively uninhabited location and expanding their civilization into this area." Source

"Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial conquest or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries." Source

[Natas]

CONT.

Originally Posted by Theodore

We went there to throw Saddam out of power, establish a free and democratic government and fight terrorists. And that’s what we’re doing.

Really? Here's some other explanations offered up by your friends in Washington --

http://img400.imageshack.us/img400/9704/21rat6hf.jpg

Originally Posted by Theodore

You can go on and on about oil and Haliburton and Bush lied and all the rest of the tired slogans the malcontented use, but the reality coming out of Iraq doesn’t support them.

Whoa!! Wipe the foam from your mouth. I didn't mention anything about oil, Haliburton, or Bush's lies, even if I agree completely with those, "Slogans".
You are right about one thing so far..."The reality is coming out of Iraq." The only thing is... body bags are all too real.

Originally Posted by Theodore

The left in this country refuses to admit that maybe there was a noble and moral purpose behind this war. They don’t want to hear the good news coming out of Iraq. They don’t want to listen to the thousands of Iraqi’s who cheer our troops as liberators.

I would love to listen to thousands of Iraqi's cheering us on. Do you have a link?

Originally Posted by Theodore

They will not see that we have terrorism on the run and that we are winning the war. Why? Because to admit any of these things would be to say Bush was right about Iraq.

Well, I can't speak for the other, "Left", but I would love to see that we have terrorism on the run and that we are winning the war. Even if it meant that Bush was correct about Iraq. Maybe if I only watch Fox news from now on it would become clearer.

Originally Posted by Theodore

I think time is going to prove that we did the right thing in the Middle east.

History will most likely brand this war as one conceived in deceit and secrecy, perpetrated in the name of stopping terrorism.