[Liberator]

"American Empire"?

Could you name one country that the USA has invaded that it has turned over to self-rule after a period of time?

Germany? NUH-UH, selfruling
Japan? Nope, sorry Self-Rule since the middle of the last century
Afganistan?  On the verge
Iraq? When the time is right

Any more?

[mrduckman]

Heh.. do I hear a nationalist talking here?

Was Germany ever taken by the USA? or was it ever ruled by USA?
Was Japan?
These countries were fought because the WWII.
But Afganistan and Iraq? Terrorism is one one thing, but political or economical issues should not be the cause to take over a country.

Perhaps the USA, and many of the other countries of the like, should learn the wisdom of the Prime Directive.....

[Rictor]

Germany: Self rule, you're right.

Japan: Ditto, but there is still a US military presence over there, same as Germany.

Afghanistan: What, you mean Karzai? He was US appointed. His government rules Kabul and not much else. The local warloards have retaken much of Afghanistan. Even so, its a puppet regime.

Iraq: Same thing. Puppet government is a-coming.

Its a nice tactic though. Go after the one part (two words) in my entire post that you could possibly argue, and conveniently ignore the rest. This saves you from having to face the tough arguements.

As I'm so keen at pointing out, the US has military bases in over 130  nations. Are you going to tell me that they are all there by invitation? Furthermore, there are dozens of governments who are subservient to American policy and amount to more or less pupper-regimes. Empire does not necessarily mean having an American running the show. It only means that undue influence is present in regards to the policiies of that nation. Things have evolved a bit since Augustus' times.

[mrduckman]

Absolutly right.

Besides, most countries owe USA money

[Liberator]

Not as such, there is a massive trade deficit between countries like China and Taiwan though.  Those countries put gigantic import duties on US goods and the US has almost no import duties to speak of, it's rediculous.

And Rictor, before you go off on that tangent, I believe that American goods should have a fair playing field to compete with foreign goods and then let the quality decide.

[Rictor]

I agree. But as it stands now, its the subsidies that decide. Some poor shcmuck in, say, Columbia, just can't compete with the heavily subsidised goods that are imported from the US or Britain. So, why don't they just subsidise their own agro-business you ask? Its forbidden under WTO and IMF rules. This is true for most of the third world, at least those that aren't under US sanctions. Apparently, those same rules need not apply for first world countries, they're powerful enough not to have to follow them.

also, I never mentioned anything about free trade. You say I'm going off on a tangent, I think you have it the wrong way around. But whatever, doesn't matter who started it, thats not the topic at hand. Perhaps you'de care to debate some of the other points brought up by myself and others, instead of attacking two words in my post.

BTW, If I recall correctly, the US has a huge international debt as well. The world's largest I think, though don't quote me on that yet.

mrduckman: awesome name.

[Gank]

Originally posted by mrduckman
Absolutly right.

Besides, most countries owe USA money

Liberators correct, the US has a massive trade deficit owing other countrys 100s of billions of dollars. Some people would tell you this is a sign of economic strength though

, I believe that American goods should have a fair playing field to compete with foreign goods and then let the quality decide.

Uh, the US is pretty quick to impose tariffs on imports if they're hurting its own business's, Steel for example.

btw, nother one gone:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040420/wl_nm/iraq_honduras_dc&cid=574&ncid=1480

[ionia23]

[Rictor]

Why do people keep leaving these vauge remarks which can be interepreted in any way at all. Here I am, writing out mutiple-paragraph replies like and idiot, and you answer with a freaking thumbs up. Who do you think you are and so forth. Anways, kind of hard to know which post, much less which part of which post you are agreeing with. Same with mrduckman. Which, as you might imagine, makes it very hard indeed for me to ridicule and belittle you for you absurd points of view. Try to be more considerate in the future.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Liberator

What I said was Ghostavo was placing the USA on the same level as N. Korea, Sudan, or China in terms of Human Rights.  This is a patent lie and he knows it.

A lie? I think not. An exaggeration perhaps.

As our good old Prez said:

See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction. — George W. Bush, Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003

Our government though, has a nice long history of overthrowing democracies in favor of tyrants to serve its own ends. This was the hallmark of Republican and Democratic administrations at the beginning of this century and it continues to this day.

I mean you can't argue with your own history right? I mean we created the Korean problem, the Vietnamese problem, the Chilean problem, the Iraq AND Iranian problems, and the Afghanistan problem.

Just because we didn't give a signed and engraved orders to create "rape rooms" and "death squads" to the people we either installed or caused to be installed, doesn't mean we get to claim the moral high ground. When, Pinochet did his dirty deeds, that blood was on our hands, because we set it up. North Korea and its current problems are on our hands because we just had to poke our noses into their affairs (and then not even to back the democratically minded!). The Iraqis killed in Iraq by Iraqis with chemical weapons are at our feet, since we supplied the weapons and the training. The Iranians that died from Iraqi deployed chemical weapons are ours too, because we supported the regime that deployed them.

American responsibility gets even worse when you consider the causes behind some US involvement. In at least one case in South America, we supported a rebellion against a democratically elected regime so that American companies could dictate fiscal and trade policies.

You're absolutely right when you say that the government of the United States is its people. Unfortunately for all of us, that means we're the guilty ones, because we allowed our government to make the decisions that led to these debacles.

Liberator, if you give a child a gun and he shoots someone with it, you're an accomplice. You don't get to claim the moral high ground just because your finger didn't pull the trigger. To believe otherwise, is to be delusional at best and outright dishonest at worst.

[Rictor]

Poor South-American bastards, they've been getting the brunt of it for quite a while. Here is a wealth of information regarding US policy and Latin America.

http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/indices/regions/latin.html

[mrduckman]

Hey, don't call me bastard, shmuck ;P

It is said that USA supported many dictatorships around here.
The last Argentinian and Chilean (is it well written?) dictatorships, for example.
Panama's, before USA took over...

And on the weapons stuff, USA never signed the "No nuclear weapons" treaty. AFAIK.
And if George W. Bull said Free nations don't attack each other... I've to say, in a very jewish way, wasn't Irak a free nation?
Wasn't Pakistan a free nation?
Why would USA still be developing weapons of mass destruction? (If it is, no one would really know)

And for you, Rictor, I must have time to write more. I was working, you know?
Or would you like something less.. Like our friend ionia23

[Rictor]

When was Pakistan attacked? Musharraf is very pro-US, though its going to cost him the government. But nevermind, there are many other examples.

Don't work, though I'm going to have to start very soon, unless the college's recongnize Monopoly Money as legal tender. Man, that'de be sweet.

[mrduckman]

Pakistan, Afganistan.. Well. Over there

And if anywhere would recognize Monopoly money as legal that would be a *FREE* nation.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator


No, I'm afraid it's not because the government of America is the people.
 

Even if the majority vote for the other guy?  (and this is excluding the strange goings on in with banning voters in Florida.....which some might call electoral fraud)

[Bobboau]

oh, it was a tie already

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Ghostavo
Acer, também acho que é bom encontrar finalmente alguém aqui que fale português já estava a ficar quase desesperado.

You can speak portuguese to me too if you feel desperate. I uderstand it. I just can't write in it

[Acer]

That is, unless you want to open this discussion up to mass deforestation in the Amazon.

Real clever.. changing the subject completely so you dont have to asnwer me...
But ok lets talk bout the amazon.. Here are some facts for you:

Europe used to be a giant temperated forest, I wonder where the forest went to. The USA also had plenty of forest most of wich are gone, you should be gratefull that we didnt follow the first world contries exemple and took everything down, most of the amazon is still there you know. Also most companies that take down trees in the amazon iligally are amaricans...
Just a thought.

Heres something else to think about:

The USA is wants most contries to disarm themselves especially of nuclear weapons, it wants india and paquistan to get rid of their nukes, and it doesnt want anymore countries to start making them, yet the USA has the largest atomic arsenal in the world and was the only country in history who ever dared to use a nuclear weapon against fellow humans (Iroshima and Nagasaki in japan).

Brigado pela recepção ghostavo, mas eu já frequento aqui e principalmente a volitionwatch a algum tempo, eu simplesmente não postava, gosto de ficar nas sombras

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Rictor
Why do people keep leaving these vauge remarks which can be interepreted in any way at all. Here I am, writing out mutiple-paragraph replies like and idiot, and you answer with a freaking thumbs up. Who do you think you are and so forth. Anways, kind of hard to know which post, much less which part of which post you are agreeing with. Same with mrduckman. Which, as you might imagine, makes it very hard indeed for me to ridicule and belittle you for you absurd points of view. Try to be more considerate in the future.

My points don't require multiple paragraphs of explanation because, well, I'm right.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Acer

The USA also had plenty of forest most of wich are gone, you should be gratefull that we didnt follow the first world contries exemple and took everything down, most of the amazon is still there you know. Also most companies that take down trees in the amazon iligally are amaricans...
Just a thought.

Heres something else to think about:

The USA has plenty of forest cover that is still there, thanks largely in part to the establishment of national parks.  We could do much better though.  

And most of the deforestation in the Amazon is done but sustenance farmers, a policy vehemently supported by your government.  At the rate you're going, central Brazil will resemble Mars in 15 years.  Mark my words, son.  One day the slash-and-burns will not go out.  You watch.