Stupid patriotic Americans

[DinoDoc]

Re the Dixie Chicks arguement earlier in the thread:

Top Country Albums

2 Dixie Chicks, Home 6
CRG | 86840* | Monument/Columbia | (12.98 EQ/18.98)

http://www.billboard.com/bb/charts/country.jsp

They don't seem to be suffering much from it.

[Arrian]

A bargain sale that Napolean thought was in his best interest, of course. He was a bit strapped for cash at that point, IIRC.

The Russians helped out too, with Alaska.

-Arrian

[Master Zen]

Yes, then so did China, Indochina, Korea, and all the others who were swallowed by Japan's expansion, we are talking about foreign powers around the world. No one stopped the US so I see little reason for the US stopping others who simply did the exact same thing in the other side of the globe.

btw smarty, how so did Britain stop US expansion??

EDIT: yes Dino, I'm talking to you

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
And who helped you with a nice bargain sale? The French.

The suckers.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Arrian
p.s. Gold Star for anyone who picks up the Eddie Izzard reference.

Oooh you're starting with Eddie Izzard again!

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Act against Japan? Who the hell acted against the US when it rampaged across the continent in the name of "manifest destiny"?

Ah, the ol' change the subject trick... Shall I bring up Aztec and Incan expansionist policies?

It is so hipocritical that you say the US should have acted sooner against Japan since it is very ironic that one of history's greatest imperialists and land-grabbers suddenly wants Japan to cease its own expansion.

What is hypocritical about it? Must the US always behaveGreat nations will always conflict eventually. National interests can not be ignored forever and the most the US could stomach in 1941 was an emargo. Big whoop. Remember this was pre-GATT/WTO so nations were free to trade with whomever they wished without international reprecussions. Even you must admit that 1941 America was extremely isolationist.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Master Zen
we are talking about foreign powers around the world.

I had no idea that the UK and Mexico (at least) were within the sovereign territory of the US. When did that happen and why did we let them go?

btw smarty, how so did Britain stop US expansion??

They tried to stop it by conquering it. Don't they teach you about the War of 1812 in the Mexican School system?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by gunkulator

Ah, the ol' change the subject trick... Shall I bring up Aztec and Incan expansionist policies?

I didn't change the subject, I changed the players. You're changing the subject buy posting a nonsense comparison about two ancient-era civilizations which I pressume a look at my flag makes you think I bear some relation to. No, I am not Aztec any more than you are Scandinavian. I have no relation to the Aztec empire nor am I supporter of their policies so please make a decent comparison next time.

What is hypocritical about it? Must the US always behaveGreat nations will always conflict eventually. National interests can not be ignored forever and the most the US could stomach in 1941 was an emargo. Big whoop. Remember this was pre-GATT/WTO so nations were free to trade with whomever they wished without international reprecussions. Even you must admit that 1941 America was extremely isolationist.

What I am getting at is that I find it hipocritical that you say the US should have acted out more firmly against Japan's expansionism, when the US itself was guilty of the same crimes just a few decades before.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I had no idea that the UK and Mexico (at least) were within the sovereign territory of the US. When did that happen and why did we let them go?

what the hell are you saying? Makes no sense...

They tried to stop it by conquering it. Don't they teach you about the War of 1812 in the Mexican School system?

The war of 1812 was began BY the US after Britain tried to impress US sailors. If Britain had been trying to conquer the US it need not have waited for an excuse and would have done so waaay before, or waaay after.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Master Zen
what the hell are you saying? Makes no sense...

Do they not qualify as foreign powers even under your definition?

The war of 1812 was began BY the US after Britain tried to impress US sailors.

[continued threadjack]The impressment of our sailors constituted an act of war in and of itself.[/continued threadjack]

If Britain had been trying to conquer the US it need not have waited for an excuse and would have done so waaay before, or waaay after.

I'm only talking about her actions during the conflict. Before or after really isn't relevent.

[Flubber]

A stupid person is stupid whether the biggest patriot in the world or an anti-nationalism protestor. Ignorance, stereotypes and plain stupidity exists on each side. There are also some pretty bright cookies on each side of almost every contentious issue.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pekka
Ming, you are very correct.. so me not mentioning it was bad. And saying American patriots, it's not 100% true. There are different kind of patriots, they all consider them true patriots and still are very different, yet most likely they all are patriots by its definition. I didn't mean it to come out like that, sorry.

Ned, I don't know about that. Maybe, maybe not..I just wanted to say, that I think that wasn't a solid argument.

Hey Pekka, thanks for the help. Of course, you know, I am pressing an extreme view in order to "liberal" bash the folks here on Apolyton. It's fun!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian


If you're arguing for more principled foreign policy, good for you, just don't even try to insinuate that our past or current policies have been/are principled.

I think principled American foreign policy (beacon of democracy, freedom and lots of other wonderful things, etc) is probably a pipe dream, so I think I'd settle for a "realistic" foreign policy + dropping the silly rhetoric/flag waving.

-Arrian

Actually, I am arguing somewhat for Jimmy Carter's foreign policy of being anti-dictator reqardless of whether they were friendly. The pragmatist, e.g., Kissinger, would argue the opposite.

But yes, of course, I am arguing for a principled foreign policy except where our national security concerns are overwhelming. Thus our support of Stalin was justified becuase it helped shorten the war and saved American lives.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

You have to admit he's insanely successful

(It's kind of fun to see you guys go ballistic over my flag-waving super patriot act. )

[Pekka]

Ned, No problem. Go get'em all!