Why the US has to be and should be "imperialist"

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Sava:

compare the demagraphics of the poorest 10% of Americans and you will see they are roughly proportionate by population (well except American Indians who are disproportionately impoverished but that's another story)


thanks

Now can anyone spot the flaw in this devastating argument?

I may be wrong, but I think he's now old enough to have the vote. Jesus H ****ing Christ almighty.

[Al B. Sure!]

Sava:

Excuse me? You yourself said that the rich people were all white... how the hell are you POSSIBLY NOT racist against white people then?!

Furthermore, I actually covered myself when I said that the top one percent being of a specific ethnic group has little bearing on the country. So rich jews (a MINORITY group) don't affect the country detrimentally... so I'm a semite apparently, while you, furious at a MAJORITY group composing the top percent, are somehow not anti-caucasion...


Mad Viking:

Being an 'Arab-American', I have had no such experiences... they are blown out of proportion...


and to those who said I am a racist... how the hell is that possible when I am ATTACKING your European racial states?!

Persia, Rome, Ottoman Empire, United States...


thanks

[orange]

Arab American my fucking arse.

You're half Lebanese. You've long since assimilated.

[orange]

a state is not racist just because it is racially based. That is the most glaring of many fundamental flaws to your 'argument'.

[Al B. Sure!]

Orange:

You think a racially-based country that becomes imperialistic would give a damn about the foreign 'vassals'?

[orange]

you think an Imperialistic United States gives a damn about the foreign vassals? We care about furnishing our interests. We may have some decent goals, but the main reasoning is to further our own interests.

It has less to do with how your nation breaks down ethnically than how democratic it is, in my opinion, but any imperialistic country is that way for its own gain - not humanity's.

[LDiCesare]

What's your definition of a racial state in the first place?
In France, anyone born in France can be French (you may have to choose your nationality when you come of age, which I think is silly), exactly as children of a French. You can also become French through other means, but that probably takes more time than becoming citizen of the U.S.
That is not racial, that is ground-based, as the US.
Furthermore, the US have an history of quotas against immigration, which don't really plead in favour of a non-racial state.
Also, the U.S. has laws that makes its citizens unequal. I may be wrong but I think you don't have to be of American nationality in order to be eligible for presidency, but have to have been born on the U.S. soil. This is a discrimination between citizens of the same state which, IMO, confines to racism (though I understand it is a leftover of the time when all Americans were Brittish one year before so they had to coin out a law which would make the difference with the English).

[orange]

I believe there are exceptions to that rule, LDiCesare, for example an American baby born abroad, but otherwise well stated

[Donegeal]

Everybody is gunning for #1. So #1 does what is can to stay on top.

It just so happens that #1 (production and militarily speaking) is the US. So it goes around trying to make sure it stays there.

Would any other country not do the same if it was in the same position?

If the answer is "no", then that is why they aren't at the top.

[Trifna]

Other countries, if they have the same kind of mass medias and all, will do same since it's all the same humans. A political system where the worst elements are going to the top is a problem. But it doesn't make it correct It has to be stopped.


NOW,
to anyone who'd think USA's government is on the right path, look to this:

It is before 1991 that Saddam did his worst atrocities. They were (among other things) bio-chemical weapons attacks done against Iran's civilian population and Iraq's dissident populations (Kurds). It is at that time that USA was supporting Iraq, and they would even answer to journalists saying that Irak was using such methods such things by official communiqués saying that it is a non sense, Saddam "is our ally and friend" (quoted from Bush, father). I do not remember exactly, but I think the sources for such weapons were furnished by USA's government (to do medical research or soemthing I guess, officially. It's what is done with Israël).

Okay, so let's stick just to this little element without losing ourselves on debates that are wider and longer. It's coming from Noam Chomsky in a conference (and in his books, certainly). Noam Chomsky is one of the leading American dissident (Massachusett's Institute of Technology teacher).

[Graag]

I do not remember exactly, but I think the sources for such weapons were furnished by USA's government

Hey don't forget us! While Saddam was gassing, shooting and generally kicking the crap out of anyone he didn't like, the UK was a solid supporter. We sold him a ****load of weapons. Oh, sorry I mean farming supplies, that Iraq magically converted into guns, planes, bombs and chemical weapons.

As an interesting aside, I read somewhere that the US (CIA), while still good buddies with Iraq gave Saddam 'the go-ahead' to attack the Kurds, in order to have an excuse to start the gulf war. If anyone cares I'll find a link.

[Skanky Burns]

Dumb and dumber, now an Apolyton thread.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Graag
As an interesting aside, I read somewhere that the US (CIA), while still good buddies with Iraq gave Saddam 'the go-ahead' to attack the Kurds, in order to have an excuse to start the gulf war. If anyone cares I'll find a link.

Considering the fact that the two incidents are spaced quite far apart in time, yes I would like to see a link.

[Lonestar]

As would I

[Trifna]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the US has to be and should be "imperialist"

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


This is one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard. The price of oil is set by international markets and particularly influence by the futures and related commodities markets in NYMEX.

Talk of war didn't start because oil prices were up, oil prices went up based on market expectations of possible supply disruptions and risk as a result of war. The best way to floor the price of oil isn't to invade Iraq, it's the opposite - just end the UN sanctions and bring Iraqi oil into the marketplace.

But wars, Middle East countries and many factors have some great influence.