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

[Spiffor]

While the Amercian law and texts may go in AS' direction (indeed, you merely have to be born on American ground to become one), there is a huge difference between legal texts and reality.
Last century, France was imperialistic, and justified itself with the very same reasons AS is saying now : formally, France wanted to "share its great civilization to the backwards people of Africa" (read Jules Ferry's speeches on these issues, it's even stupider than AS' assumptions).

A mere 2 centuries ago, France wasn't only made of French people, far from it : Britannians (no idea on how you say this in English), Basques and Corsicans mostly didn't speak any French word, and there were tons of local languages. Ethnically, France is a mix between Latin, Celtic, and Germanic ethnicities (with a domination of Latin blood). If AS says France is only made of French now, it's because of 150 years of agressive cultural assimilation.
Ethnically, France remains quite varied if you consider Alsacians, Basques, Britannians and Corsicans not to be ethnically French (some do). Also, we have a big Arab minority, and have been an immigration country for one century, with many peole of Italian / Spanish / Portuguese / Subsaharian African ascent.

I am not defending France as being more "socially advanced" than a country like Germany which always built itself on bloodright rather than groundright (Many people in Germany are Turks even if their family lives in Germany for several generations). In fact, France may be behind : racist movements like Le Pen's one get 15% regularily. Our Blacks and Arabs, while being full-fledged citizens, get constantly discrimanted by the population and by the police. The rift between whites (whatever if they come from Italy or from Britanny in the first place) and the non-whites is increasing. That's not what I call the most advanced society.
This is deep rooted : during its imperialism, France was supposed to integrate all conquered countries (like AS expects the US to do), but all conquered people weren't equal : in Algeria, Jews became full-fledged French citizens, while Muslims always remained 2nd class citizens. In Subsaharian Africa, there was a permanent and obvious racism, even if officially, black people were to become French in the future. Same for Asia.

Sorry for the long hiatus about France, but French "multinational" ideals are very close to American ones, and very opposite to German ones. With this example I know well, I simply wanted to show that whatever the law, an imperial state will remain racist, and will keep plundering resources of conquered countries.
There are some reasons why the US are currently the least horrible imparialists around, but AS' point is laughable.

[Az]

Arab American my ****ing arse.

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

what's the difference? why does it matter?

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I guess you've never heard of MMA

Do the Brazilians still kick everyone's ass?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns


Dumb and dumber, now an Apolyton thread.

Ockers!

Just because you are evil, smell, have sex with farm animals AND CHEAT AT RUGBY!!!!


And what's all this talk about the Massachusetts Municipal Association?

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Trifna
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).

Saddam was a better choice than Ayatollah Khomeini. As long as he gased Ayatollah's minions, he was our 'friend'.

[Trifna]

Lord Merciless, you seem to know more about Ayatollah Khomeini, would you make me the pleasure to say a little mroe about him and what concerns him?

[Ted Striker]

US is like a role model. Whether or not we choose to be the superpower, the fact remains, we are the sole superpower.

The people of the United States are all having a very deep dialog about what our role is supposed to be, and it's still evolving as we speak.

The situation in the world right now has never been tried before.

[Ted Striker]

There is a really cool dialog program called "By the People," that is hosted by Jim Lehrer where all of these role discussions take place between the people of the US and foreign policy experts and leaders. I think this is one of the most responsible and valuable television programs to ever be aired. I highly recommend it, the discussion is well thought out:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/about.html

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Trifna
Lord Merciless, you seem to know more about Ayatollah Khomeini, would you make me the pleasure to say a little mroe about him and what concerns him?

The fact that he instated a fundamentalist islamic state and kept our embassy personnels hostage was more than enough.

Also, you can reason with a gangster(Saddam), but fundamentalist zealots(Khomeini, OBL) are impervious to logic and reason.

[Trifna]

There wasn't only Khomeini...
It's like the situation now. In the people that are proposed for the post-Saddam, democratic ones aren't listed alot... but that guy responsible for bloody Kurb repressing is in this! Non-sense, but he may give better oil conditions.... But I never said Khomeni was a better solution than Saddam of course.


About USA vs Middle East, I'll answer you this, Lord (its a message I posted earlier):

"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)."

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
The United States is, without a doubt, the most socially advanced society in the world...

Rodney King

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by Agathon
The United States is a lousy place to live because it has:

(1) Slaves: well, illegal workers aren't technically slaves, but they don't enjoy any of the rights of citizens and are basically tolerated as an underclass. Forced labourers in prison however are slaves - there is just no other way of looking at it.

Technically, since they're not citizens, they don't have rights. In fact, in times of necessary crisis, the government, wanting to be seen to be doing something, make an example of their illegal worker population. Don't believe me? It happened in the months after 9/11. And why are the illegal immigrants tolerated? Cheap labour for the businessess, and the business men rule America. Why do businessmen rule America? Because in the US, you have to buy airtime, which means the richest parties get the most coverage. In Britain, party political broadcast time is allocated based on a party's no. of seats. But since only the rich parties get airtime, other parties don't get a look-in. The status quo in America is shocking, but it will never change. It will never change because the status quo suits the businessmen and the businessmen back whichever politician will help keep it that way.

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Japanese act imperialistically in Korea... Koreans become second-class citizens of the Japanese Empire with no hope of being accepted into the ethnic state that is Japan.

US acts imperialistically in Korea. Koreans will be equals to Americans and be accepted into a multi-national state that has a history of accepting people of various ethnicities

What's your scientific basis for this? How do you know what will happen?

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
rich white people? more like rich jews...

but what the hell does 1% being rich matter? They have little effect on the mainstream of American society

Actually, the 1% rule America. For the reason outlined above. Politics in the US MUST become less reliant on financial backing. Only then could you even begin to consider that it is the people who rule (i.e. a democracy), and not the 1%. The 1% also own the TV stations,a nd thus control the news. I'll tell you a story. Imemdiately after 9/11, news stations showed footage of unnamed arabs celebrating in the streets of an unnamed arab nation. The TV stations forgot to mention the context. The context was that that footage was from 10 years ago. This was exposed after media students in the UK declared that they had seen the same footage as part of their course. Who edits the news? The 1%...

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by zulu9812


Technically, since they're not citizens, they don't have rights. In fact, in times of necessary crisis, the government, wanting to be seen to be doing something, make an example of their illegal worker population. Don't believe me? It happened in the months after 9/11. And why are the illegal immigrants tolerated? Cheap labour for the businessess, and the business men rule America.

I agree with this. We do it up old school Dutch Mercantilism style.

Why do businessmen rule America? Because in the US, you have to buy airtime, which means the richest parties get the most coverage. In Britain, party political broadcast time is allocated based on a party's no. of seats. But since only the rich parties get airtime, other parties don't get a look-in. The status quo in America is shocking, but it will never change. It will never change because the status quo suits the businessmen and the businessmen back whichever politician will help keep it that way.

This part is pretty exaggerated though.