Pax Americana

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Sava
Sounds like he'd be perfect for the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign.

Dems can always take it to a court they rigged to break the law, like Florida's, for example.

I'm sure al Gore invented it anyway, seeing how he invented everything else.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by problem_child
Thank you Cerburus, a little honesty, so again I ask... why the bull about spreading freedom and democracy, when what they really mean is 'America First, Stamp on the Rest'. You see, it's the Lies that disgust me the most... specially when this extremely disingenuose image that is portrayed is perpetuated throughout Western media.

its not bull ****, its just a secondary objective. Us going in to a region for our self-interest is a means, and the 'freedom and democracy' thing is an end. who cares about the means, when the end is the important thing?

[HershOstropoler]

"Actually, America's greatest gift to the world may have been our LACK of action in WWI."

Yup, you just should have stayed it through.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Does it suck being wrong?

Um.. Sava... Meldor actually seems to be 100% correct. Observe:

BTW just so there is no misunderstanding. They people Sava is so upset about "set up" the think tank. The people who actually run it are as follows

PNAC's founding document was signed by Paul Wolfowitz, **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and numerous others who have gone on to become major players in the Bush national security team.

So you are upset about those that set it up (signed the founding document), NOT the people that run the think-tank .

So, Sava... does it suck being wrong?

[Sava]

Dems can always take it to a court they rigged to break the law, like Florida's, for example.

What's the use when the court is in cahoots with the criminals.

[Meldor]

Originally posted by Sava
Does it suck being wrong?

I believe I stated that they set it up. Not denied they run it. Signing the letter that kicked it off doen't mean they run it by any means. I listed those who run it as a response to your statement that those that it was run people in the current administration (to paraphrase).

Again insulting me won't win your point.

The people I listed run the think tank, the people you want to get so excited about "signed" a document. I think I can tell the difference, thank you. If you want to call what I said wrong, please re-read it...

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Sava
What's the use when the court is in cahoots with the criminals.

How is the campaign to have Bush impeached going?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Does it suck being wrong?

Um.. Sava... Meldor actually seems to be 100% correct. Observe:

BTW just so there is no misunderstanding. They people Sava is so upset about "set up" the think tank. The people who actually run it are as follows

PNAC's founding document was
signed by Paul Wolfowitz, **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and numerous others who have gone on to become major players in the Bush national security team.

So, Sava... does it suck being wrong?

I'm only wrong if the Bushies have no contact whatsoever with that think-tank. It's like a hierarchy. Of course Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rummy aren't working for the think-tank anymore. They have graduated to other leadership positions. But that think tank still works for the Bush-admin and the same people who set it up. That was my point, sorry if you didn't understand properly.

[Sava]

How is the campaign to have Bush impeached going?

About as well as the economy and war are going.

[Chris 62]

In that case, Bush has been out of office for at least a month.

Funny how the news services missed that one.

Maybe they lied, or are 'misleading' the public as to whether he's still president.

[Sava]

Chris: Do you live in some bizarro world? Or just suffering from some sort of degenerative mental disease? This economy is bad, 3 million jobs have been lost since the president's 2001 "job creating" tax cuts. The war in Iraq, while a conventional victory, is not going well. A soldier a day is dying, and about a billion a weak is being spent... in futility, trying to force democracy on a people that don't want it.

So in case you probably misunderstood... the war and economy are going bad... the same as efforts trying to get this idiot president out of office. But I've decided to weather the storm and concentrate on 2004.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Whom did you keep out? The spanish (and portuguese, though under different circumstances) had just lost it, and few powers had an appetite to redo the 20 year wars of independence that the spanish lost. Also, had the brits wanted a piece of it, you would have been barely in a position to stop them.

Starting in the 1820's Several European colonies began to to emmulate the US's revolutionary war and tried gain their independence through armed conflict. Nearly all of these new states were weak and European states began to eye them up as potential new additions to their colonial Empires. The US had been frozen out of trade in Latin America during the colonial period due to the merchantilist policies which nearly all of the European powers had at the time and thus wanted to prop up the newly independent states since they would make natural trading partners for the US. To this end the US declared that any outside power which attempted to expand their colonial holdings in the western hemisphere would be seen as a hostile invader who had attacked the US.

For the most part the Euros respected that declaration because the US had the 2nd-3rd largest navy in the world and the largest navy in the region plus the US exports of cotton, grain, tabbacco, and lumber (including 50% of the world's hardwood ship masts which was vital to anyone who wanted to build a navy) were needed (or at least were valuable) to most European powers. Thus the Euros didn't push things to far. The two notable exceptions were when France invaded and attempted to subjectgate Mexico when the US was involved in its civil war and when gold was discovered along the border between Venezuela and British Guyana. The US mediated the peace treaty between Britian and Venezuela (in which Britain gave back most but not all of the land it had seized) and then forced the French out of Mexico by saying they would declare war unless the French immediately left. Of course the US waited until the end of the Civil War (some 3 years later) before they picked a fight with France but the fact the US had a battle hardened 1million man army and arguably the largest navy in the world at the time was enough to convince the French to leave.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Sava
Chris: Do you live in some bizarro world? Or just suffering from some sort of degenerative mental disease? This economy is bad, 3 million jobs have been lost since the president's 2001 "job creating" tax cuts. The war in Iraq, while a conventional victory, is not going well. A soldier a day is dying, and about a billion a weak is being spent... in futility, trying to force democracy on a people that don't want it.

You need to take that head out of your ass, son.
Iraq is in great shape, an independent (so you understand what that means, NOT government approved)survey team just returned from Iraq, and presented high marks in all areas of recovery, only the dead-ender ambushers remain a problem.
But being ignorant of military matters, I don't expect you to understand such matters.

So in case you probably misunderstood... the war and economy are going bad... the same as efforts trying to get this idiot president out of office. But I've decided to weather the storm and concentrate on 2004.

You need to stop reading fantasy rags, the economy has been on the upswing the last several weeks, of course I don't expect you to understand that I work on wall street and know what I'm talking about, and am not a ranting frothing at the mouth Bush hating maniac like somebody we know.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Chris 62
. . . . . and am not a ranting frothing at the mouth Bush hating maniac like somebody we know.

Hmmmm . . . .

who are we talking about?

whisper it to me

[HershOstropoler]

Oerdin:

"Starting in the 1820's Several European colonies began to to emmulate the US's revolutionary war and tried gain their independence through armed conflict."

In the 1820s? Which ones?

"The US had been frozen out of trade in Latin America during the colonial period due to the merchantilist policies"

Somewhat, but Spain had to sell a lot of concessions before that. The Brits supported Latin American independence to get a free entry for trade.

Fine with the rest. Just what has it got to do with promoting democracy?